Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
Rekha Neypally – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent
ORDER :
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Heard the learned Senior Designate counsel Sri V. Hari Haran, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent.
2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under :
Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits determined by date of actual appointment to grade, not eligibility or process initiation date; direct recruits appointed earlier senior despit....
The court's decision was influenced by the need to balance the interests of the bank and account holders while allowing the respondent bank's application for vacation of the interim order.
The court emphasized the importance of transparency and clarity in promotion policies to uphold constitutional rights to equality and fair treatment.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 04.08.1997.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
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
