Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
NAGENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. A Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the Order/Communication No. I-15012/12/2018/Estt/1611 dated 07.12.2018 and to order for his notional promotion and fixation of the seniority in the post of Inspector (GD) on the basis of E-list drawn in September, 2006 and also to grant him seniority to the post of Inspector (GD) above respondent No. 3 Sh. Sher Singh who was junior to the petitioner, having been promoted as Sub-Inspector in September, 2003 in the general category like the petitioner.
2. The petitioner joined the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Force as Sub-Inspector (GD) on 12.08.2002. He was the topper of his batch. He after successfully completing 54 weeks of Basic Training at ITBP Academy, Mussourie, was posted in Border Battalion in Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. After completion of his tenure, he was posted at Directorate General, ITBP, New Delhi. The petitioner secured first position in Intelligence course held at New Delhi in 2005. Considering his performance, he was selected by Directorate General as I
The judgment establishes that failure to qualify the E-list test and medical conditions may not meet the conditions for protection of seniority as per Standing Order No. 1/92.
The petitioner is entitled to seniority from the date his juniors were promoted, as administrative delays in conducting the Medical Board should not penalize him.
The appointment date and seniority of a candidate should be based on their exam rank, and failure to communicate potential loss of seniority can be held against the authorities.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and denial of timely consideration constitutes a violation of these rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that promotion decisions are based on seniority-cum-merit and the application of relevant rules, specifically the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Prom....
Seniority fixed from vacancy year for delayed DPCs, not assumption of charge, enabling notional promotion and further eligibility.
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
