Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA
Pabnesh Kumar Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th August 2024 passed in CWP No. 4774 of 2015, titled Ashok Kumar vs. H.P. Vidhan Sabha & others, vide which writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was allowed, and the present respondent No.2 (original respondent No.1) was directed to re-calculate the marks of all the answers correctly provided by the petitioner and thereafter re-determine the seniority based on merit. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are thatthe petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for setting aside the seniority list for the year 2001 onwards in which the petitioner was shown at serial No.5, writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to correct the seniority list and take disciplinary action against the erring official. It was asserted that the petitioner and others were appointed as clerks by respondent No.1 on 20.02.2001. The petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 5 in the seniority list. He filed two representation
Fraud in evaluation nullifies the validity of the selection process, allowing for judicial intervention despite delays in challenging seniority.
The court upheld that seniority in public service must be determined based on merit and established rules, allowing for revisions when discrepancies are identified.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule X of the Amended Departmental Examination Rules for Income Tax Officers, 2009, which restricted the timeframe for seeking r....
Claims regarding seniority must be raised promptly; failure to do so can lead to dismissal based on delay and laches.
The court established that the delay in asserting seniority claims, coupled with misrepresentation of facts and non-joinder of parties, barred the petitioner from relief under the Administrative Trib....
Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.
Candidates wrongfully excluded from appointments are entitled to notional seniority from the date they should have been appointed, correcting delays caused by administrative latches.
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
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
