Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J
R.Janaradanan, S/o.A.Rajamanickam – Appellant
Versus
Director General of Police – Respondent
ORDER :
This Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order issued by the petitioner in Na.Ka. No.115/36095/Pa.Pi. 5(1)/2014 dated 09.03.2015 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the C list of Head Constable fit for promotion as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1999-2000 based on the marks obtained by the petitioner in the Range Promotion Board and notionally promote the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police on par with his juniors and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner entered the service as Grade II Police Constable in Chennai City Armed Reserve on 27.02.1986. He was promoted as Lance Nayak on 18.05.1990. H was upgraded as Nayak on 21.08.1991. Later, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable notionally w.e.f. 24.09.1996. The petitioner was promoted as Special Sub-Inspector in the year 2001 and further promoted as regular Sub-Inspector of Police on 18.06.2015. The Petitioner has received more than 100 rewards in his exemplary career. During the year 2000, a range promotion board was conducted for the preparation of 'C' l
Promotion assessments must adhere to established procedures, and claims filed after significant delays may be barred by laches.
Irregularities in conducting promotional tests and unfair service assessment can lead to the quashing of promotion orders and a direction for notional promotion.
Promotion challenges based on delayed claims are subject to dismissal due to delay and laches, reinforcing the principle that timely objections are crucial in promotion-related disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner, fully exonerated from a minor punishment, is entitled to be considered for promotion from the date when his juniors were promote....
Promotion cannot be denied solely based on the number of past punishments without considering their nature and timing, ensuring equal treatment under Article 14.
The period of continuous officiation after appointment has to be taken into account for determining seniority, and where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, the experience on suc....
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
