Back
AKIL KURESHI, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
00060152 Shri Manish Yadav @ Munesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Amaresh Debnath – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Akil Kureshi; CJ.:--
These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 512 of 2017, WP(C) No. 513 of 2017 & WP(C) No. 514 of 2017. WA No. 189 of 2021, WA No. 191 of 2021 and WA No. 192 of 2021 are filed by the original private respondents. WA No. 246 of 2021, WA No. 247 of 2021 and WA No. 248 of 2021 are filed by the State government.
[2] Facts being common, may be recorded from WA No. 189 of 2021. Respondent No. 1 original petitioner was appointed as a Havilder (GD) in Tripura State Rifles on 15.01.2000. The petitioners of other two petitions were appointed to the same post on 21.01.2000 and 22.01.2000 respectively. As against this the appellants, the original private respondents of all three writ petitions were appointed to the same post on 06.06.2000, 05.06.2000, 09.06.2000 and 27.06.2000. According to the petitioners, they were recruited and appointed not only prior to the private respondents but that through a separate recruitment process. According to the petitioners thus they had a claim of seniority over the private respondents in the cadre. It appears that the appellants herein were treated as senior to th
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....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of seniority in the cadre of Food and Supplies Officers should be based on the length of continuous service, and the complet....
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.
Service Laws – Seniority List – OMs made it clear that seniority of direct recruits had to be fixed from the date of appointment and not from date of initiation of recruitment process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of the petitioners should be counted from the date of their regularization as Assistant Engineers. The court also emphasized the....
Retrospective promotion cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne in the cadre. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules was found inapplicable to determine the int....
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
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.
Seniority in service is a statutory right determined by established merit lists, with waiting list candidates lacking rights to precedence over those appointed from the main list.
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
