Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SAURABH BANERJEE
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of interim order regarding promotion (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of proceedings before aft (Para 6) |
| 3. directive for timely filing of counter affidavit (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. disposition of the petition and pending application (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
CM APPL. 36984/2022 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12325/2022 & CM APPL.36983/2022
3. By way of the present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the interim order dated 10.08.2022 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi to the extent that it summarily rejects the petitioner's prayer not to declare the result of the Special Selection Board held on 23.12.2021 and not to promote any officer from petitioner's junior batch, till pendency of OA No.2637/2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is aggrieved by the interim order dated 10.08.2022 passed in his MA No.108/2022 whereby the interim order granted earlier was vacated.
5. Learned counsel next submitted that the petitioner has been ignored despite the fact that he is eligible for promotion and if a candidate junior to the petitioner
Interim orders on promotions pending adjudication of an application must ensure timely resolution, especially when retirement is imminent.
Promotion decisions within the armed forces require thorough examination of facts and consideration of balance of convenience, especially when retirement is imminent.
The central legal point established is the obligation of the respondents to promptly implement the order of the Tribunal, especially considering the petitioner's impending retirement, and the failure....
Courts may refrain from interfering in matters pending before specialized tribunals, and provisional decisions may be deemed pending the final decision of the tribunal.
The potential illegal usurpation of office if an employee is allowed to continue in service based on an interim order that is later dismissed.
The court established that procedural fairness requires a party to have a full opportunity to present their case, without being bound by prior prejudicial findings during ongoing proceedings.
Interim orders cannot allow individuals to occupy public office unlawfully; courts must balance equities when considering such requests.
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
