Back
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SANJEEV NARULA
Inter University Accelerator Centre – Appellant
Versus
Manisha Rani – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.
1. The present LPA is arising out of the judgment dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 4367/2016 titled Manisha Rani Vs. Inter-University Accelerator Centre & Ors., wherein, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and has directed the Appellant herein to grant promotion to Respondent No.1 (Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition) as Personal Assistant with effect from 22.01.2014 i.e. the date on which she became eligible with all consequential benefits if she is otherwise eligible as per Recruitment Rules within a period of four weeks from the date of judgment passed by this Court.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Respondent No1. Manisha Rani joined the services in the Appellant Organization as Stenographer on 22.01.2009 against a reserved vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) category.
3. The By-laws in respect of the Appellant Organization were initially notified in 1987 and the By-laws and the Recruitment Rules were subsequently modified by Governing Board, Governing Council with due approval of the University Grants Commission. The By-laws which are on record provides for p
Promotions may be granted retrospectively with salary when administrative delays occur due to no fault of the employee, avoiding disparate treatment based on administrative negligence.
An employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but not a right to retrospective promotion unless clearly justified by rules or exceptional circumstances.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Promotion is not a vested right and an employee only has the right to be considered for promotion.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
The court held that promotions must comply with the established All India seniority instead of regional seniority, ruling unjust promotions based on outdated practices must be corrected.
Failure to pass mandatory departmental examination renders employee ineligible for gazetted promotion despite seniority, adhoc service, or pre-retirement DPC; no right to regular/notional promotion o....
The appointment of employees through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) should be considered a promotion, qualifying them for benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression (....
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
