Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
2ic Ram Vashishtha Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"a.) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to consider the grant of promotion to the Petitioner from the post of Assistant Commandant to Deputy Commandant, Second in Command and Commandant retrospectively w.e.f. 23.05.2002 in strict compliance of O.M. No. 36012/1/2020Estt. (Res)-II dated 17.05.2022;
b.) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to enforece O.M. No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res)-II dated 17.05.2022 in complete letter and spirit in a time bound manner."
2. Mr. Anshuman, Senior Panel Counsel, appearing on advance notice for the respondents, points out that the petitioner has already filed the Writ Petition bearing No. W.P.(C) 522/2020, wherein he sought the promotion from the Post of Assistant Commandant to the Post of Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 25.08.2004, whereas in the present petition, he is seeking the aforesaid promotion w.e.f. 23.05.2002 in view of compliance of Office Memorandum bearing No. 36012/1/2020-Estt.(Res.-II) dated 17.05.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Go
The court used the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the conduct of Departmental Promotion Committee for making promotions.
The court's decision emphasized the principle of mandamus to compel the performance of a public duty, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion within a speci....
A court can direct the consideration of a representation for promotion within a specified period if there is a delay or inaction.
Court directs consideration of promotion representations without entering merits when pending administratively.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents in response to the petitioner's representations.
The court ruled that promotion disputes are outside its jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to seek recourse through the appropriate forum.
The court emphasized that delays in pursuing promotion claims under Article 226 undermine the validity of such petitions, reinforcing discretion in granting relief based on timeliness.
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
