Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
RAJESHKUMAR KANTILAL RAMI (DECEASED) – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2- State and Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3.
2. By way of the present Petition, petitioner herein has invoked Article-226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs:
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to give promotion to the petitioner on the post of Head Examiner from the same date as that of the promotion given to respondent no. 3 and pay for all benefits applicable after promotion.
(BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to give notional promotion to the husband of the petitioner on the post of Head Examiner as that of promotion given to respondent no 3 and pay all other cons
Promotion eligibility requires meeting specific criteria, including holding the necessary position and qualifications, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate.
A candidate appearing for the H.S.C. Examination through correspondence is deemed to have completed Class-10, thus making them eligible for promotions based on seniority.
The court established that retrospective promotion cannot be granted if the candidate does not meet eligibility criteria due to disciplinary actions and insufficient qualifying marks.
Claims for promotion must be made within a reasonable time; mere vacancy does not confer a right to retrospective promotion.
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
