Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
S. Jayakumar, S/o. V. Sankaranarayanan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Rep. by Director General RPF – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the factual background of the petitioner’s promotion case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding seniority based on training completion. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on administrative delay and seniority rights. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. entitlement to seniority based on institutional training completion. (Para 10) |
| 5. final orders for revising seniority and consequential benefits. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
The challenge in these writ petitions is to the orders dated 16.05.2017 and 21.11.2017 passed by the second and third respondents respectively. Therefore, this Court has taken up both the writ petitions together and disposed of them by a common order. By the said order, the representation submitted by the petitioners seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector from the date of completion of institutional training came to be rejected.
2. The Facts of the case:
2.1. While the petitioners were working as Head Constables, the respondents issued a notification dated 16.06.2011, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive Branch), out of which 40% of the posts were reserved for in-service candidates. The peti
Employees should not suffer for administrative delays; seniority must be reckoned from completion of training, not joining date, ensuring equality and fairness in the public service.
The court established that supplementary examination marks must be included in seniority calculations for candidates who completed their training within the prescribed period.
The petitioner was entitled to notional seniority on par with the 2008 batch of Sub-Inspectors of Police based on previous orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, as well as a Supreme Court preced....
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....
The court upheld that seniority must be determined based on recruitment batch and performance in training, emphasizing timely challenges to promotions are essential to maintain stability in service r....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of seniority as a civil right and highlights the need to rectify mistakes committed by the official respondents in matters of seniority.
Adhoc promotions do not confer seniority rights until requisite qualifications are met, and failure to timely challenge regularization conditions undermines claims for seniority.
The court held that settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a long period, emphasizing the principle of res judicata and the limits of administrative power in altering promotion dates.
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
