MANMOHAN, SAURABH BANERJEE
Neetu Nagar – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| ISSUE | 1 |
| FACTS | 2-6 |
| ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER | 7-14 |
| ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 | 15-21 |
| ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 | 22 |
| REJOINDER ARGUMENTS | 23-25 |
| COURT'S REASONING | 26-38 |
| HCS and DJS are not departments of an All India Judicial Service. The petitioner had to complete the prescribed eligibility criteria in the feeder grade i.e. DJS | 26-30 |
| The Rules are categorical and provide for exception, therefore one cannot rely upon the residuary rule to import any other OM, 31-33 | |
| Judgment in Renu Mullick (supra) has no application | 34 |
| Reliance on the O.M. dated 1st September, 1998 is misplaced as there is no lateral entry | 35 |
| In All India Judges Association v. UOI & Ors. (supra), there is no direction stipulating that the service rendered as a judicial officer in another state is to be counted towards the qualifying services | 36 |
| Permitting petitioner to appear in the LDCE would amount to permitting her to take a leap over other judicial officers who are otherwise her seniors | 37-38 |
| CONCLUSION | 39 |
JUDGMENT
ISSUE
1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the past service rendered by the petitioner as a Civil Judge
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.