Back
RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA
Mehfooz Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
Mishra, J. -- 1. Challenge is made to the orders dated 11/14.8.2016, 14.10.2016 and 26.8.2017 whereby the respondent No.2 has been promoted on the post of Assistant Registrar in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs.5400/- ignoring the merit qualification and seniority of the petitioner over and above the respondent No.2. The petitioner has further challenged the promotion of the respondent No.2 on the ground that respondent No.2 is not having a minimum qualification as required for appointment for the post of feeder cadre and the petitioner was senior from the very inception, thus he could not have been superseded.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Stenographer w.e.f. 25.3.1985 in District Court, Chhindwara and he was appointed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 6.1.1988 on the post of Personal Assistant. In pursuance to the same he joined on 19.1.1988. He was promoted to the post of Private Secretary on 6.5.1996. The respondent No.2 was initially appointed w.e.f. 10.11.1986. He was holding the qualification of Higher Secondary School Certificate and was placed below the petitioner in the gradation list of his
Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within exclusive domain of legislature/executive and cannot be subject matter of judicial review.
Unchallenged seniority list attains finality; candidate from feeder post without explicit exclusion eligible for promotion per common rules; belated challenge to DPC recommendation unsustainable post....
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Eligibility for promotion under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules is based on grade rather than specific post, but mere financial upgradation does not confer entitlement to promotion.
Prior qualifications obtained before service cannot disqualify candidates from promotion, ensuring equal opportunity in service.
The court established that the criteria for promotion can include unpublished guidelines and that the Chief Justice has the authority to determine suitability for promotion, which may extend beyond t....
The court established that clubbing of posts for promotion does not violate constitutional rights if done in good faith and to address service needs.
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
