IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K VINOD CHANDRAN, V. G. Arun, JJ
B.PRADEEP – Appellant
Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against promotion based on conduct. (Para 1) |
| 2. authority of chief justice in appointments. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 3. merit and ability assessment in promotions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. disqualification based on prior penalties. (Para 8) |
| 5. administrative instructions must supplement rules. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. jurisdiction of administrative instructions in promotions. (Para 13) |
| 7. impact of currency of punishment on promotions. (Para 19 , 20 , 35) |
| 8. criteria for performance assessment in appointments. (Para 26 , 28) |
| 9. striking down non-compliant promotion criteria. (Para 34) |
K. Vinod Chandran,J:
An employee; prone to absenteeism, insubordination and habitual reluctance to do the assigned work, is before us challenging the refusal to promote him to the post of Section Officer/Court Officer; for reason of an in-eligibility prescribed by the Chief Justice other than in the rules framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The appellant had dismal grading in his Annual Confidential Reports ('ACRs' for brevity) for the earlier years; but none in the years relevant for assessment of merit and ability for promotion (hereinafter termed the 'assessment years' for brevi
Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman
James Thomas & Others v. Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala & Others
Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Chak
B.Amrutha Lakshmi v. State of A.P.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police & Ors v. V.Rani
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.