Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
N. Bharathi – Appellant
Versus
Additional Director General of Prison, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the order of the second respondent made in No.17217/ EW.1/ 2012 dated 16.04.2013 and the enclosure of the 4th respondent in Government Letter No.57856/Pri.II/2012-4 dated 19.12.2012 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to rectify the seniority of the petitioner on par with his batch mates and to extend benefits of pension scheme, GPF contribution and other service benefits arising thereto forthwith.)
1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.12.2012, fixing the seniority of the writ petitioner from the date of appointment / commencement of probation which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Grade-II Warder in the year 1997. He was provisionally selected and during the verification of antecedents, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, submitted an adverse report on 27.11.1997. The report states that a criminal case in Crime No.188 of 1997 was registered against the wr
The verification of character and antecedents is crucial in determining suitability for appointment, and the rules in force must be followed for fixing seniority.
The decision highlights the importance of character and antecedent verification for uniformed services, the finality of the Selection Committee's decision, and the inability to claim retrospective se....
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
The appointment date and seniority of a candidate should be based on their exam rank, and failure to communicate potential loss of seniority can be held against the authorities.
The respondent, having succeeded in his Petition for appointment, was entitled to all benefits admissible to him, and the inaction of the appellants infringed his fundamental rights.
Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.
The court established that seniority must be fixed retrospectively, and actions that undermine an employee's rightful promotion based on ignored ACRs are impermissible and require rectification.
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
