SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 5408

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
UOI – Appellant
Versus
GAJRAJ SINGH & ORS. – Respondent


O R D E R

% 13.11.2018

1. The petitioner, Union of India is aggrieved by the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred as “CAT”] which the respondent/officer approached complaining of arbitrariness in terms of promotion.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent [hereinafter referred to as “applicant”] was working as Assistant Commissioner of Police [hereinafter referred to as “ACP”] on ad-hoc basis from 16.11.1990 against a regular vacancy. The cadre strength of ACPs was increased to 278 from the existing cadre strength of 168 on 01.06.1994. The promotions to that post are regulated by the Delhi, Andaman Nicobar Islands Police Services Rules, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as “DANIPS Rules”]. Apparently, no Departmental Promotion Committee [hereinafter referred to as “DPC”] was constituted for the year 1990-1991. DPC held for the years 1991-1992 did not consider the petitioner‟s claim as he was not eligible. Thereafter, there was increase in the cadre strength. Annual DPC was not held till 1999. In these circumstances, an application was preferred to the CAT by other employees, and by orders made on 12.06.2000, several ad-hoc employees were granted regula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top