Back
M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, SUKHVINDER KAUR
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Gulzar Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of appeal and initial writ petition filed (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. rules on promotion and seniority defined (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. promotion eligibility queries (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. learned single judge's findings (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. principle of law on impossibility and duties (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. final decision on appeal (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal is filed challenging judgment dt.29.09.2016 in CWP-9073-2015.
2. The respondents No.1 to 19 had filed the said Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to quash orders dt.14.10.2013 and 05.12.2013 passed by appellant No.2 and had also sought a direction to the appellants to promote respondents No.1 to 19 as Senior Assistants as per their seniority from the date their juniors had been promoted as Senior Assistants along with all consequential benefits.
3. The promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is provided under Rule 8(1)(d)(ii) of the Punjab Police Clerical Services (State Service Class III) Rules, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'].
4. Rule 8(1)(d) of the Rules states:
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to recruitment rules and cautioned against flouting them, stating that deliberate deviation from the rules could lead to wrongful benefits and departme....
AMENDMENT TO RULE 14(V) OF THE RAJASTHAN DISTRICT COURTS MINISTERIAL ESTABLISHMENT RULES, 1986, DOES NOT EXCLUDE STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I AND PERSONAL ASSISTANT CUM EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FROM THE ZONE OF C....
Eligible junior's vested right to promotion precedes seniors' conditional consideration under relaxatory note in recruitment rules.
The right to promotion and seniority under the Special Rules must be upheld, ensuring eligible candidates are prioritized over direct recruits.
Rule 14(v) of Rules of 1986, pre-amendment and post amendment, reads as Promotion.
Promotion - whether or not the persons are in service for requisite length to acquire the graduation qualification is not a relevant consideration. What is relevant is that they must acquire the qual....
The court held that promotions must comply with the established All India seniority instead of regional seniority, ruling unjust promotions based on outdated practices must be corrected.
Seniority assigned to any employee could not be changed after a lapse of 7 years, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed.
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
