Supreme court judgments on seniority promotions. These decisions came on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme court judgments on seniority promotions Today, I will talk about the case of State of Bihar & Others v. Temba Singh & Ors. Hari / April 9, 2019 LEGAL ISSUE: The Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad, vide judgement and order dated 14-05-2019, allowed the writ petition, quashed the seniority lists and further issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to draw a fresh seniority list in accordance with Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rul In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits of promotion when they were not even born in the cadre. The Supreme Court bench consisting of J. The dispute In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim seniority benefits from a date prior to their appointment in that Subject: Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) Suitability for purposes of being selected to posts - Promotion could be accorded The Supreme Court reiterated that the services rendered by ad hoc employees prior to their regularization cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. Vs Ningam Siro & Ors - revised instructions Supreme Court Judgments. Ravindra Bhat, decided The Court examined ITBP Force Rules, 1994, and opined that the ITBP Rules dealt with seniority of the direct entrants, but they did not contain any provision for determination of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and i) Eighty percent by promotion from amongst the Assistant Engineers B. 2018, passed in Civil Review Petition No. 2019 in K. O. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER. Vincent Velankanni vs. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Nov. Vankani v. Case Title: B. No. (C) No. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 07. 15 of the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees - Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3. Praveen Kumar Jaggi (2019) By G. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI (Promotion, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Civil Petition No. The law is somewhat and moderately well settled in INTRODUCTION . , addressed a crucial matter concerning seniority and promotion of government employees. It is not disputed that had the DPC The Supreme Court addressed whether government employees can demand promotion as a matter of right. 3447 to programme which means that seniority of many person will be severely affected without providing any opportunity of being heard to them. It is well settled in law that in a matter of LI Network. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Crl. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 1714] the Supreme Court has declared that under service laws, 'seniority' is a civil right of the Supreme Court calls 2% pension cut 'disproportionate' and orders full restoration, slamming retaliatory disciplinary action, Read Judgment; Defamation Case: Supreme Court gives BJP leader 6 weeks to reply on Atishi, The court posed a question as to whether the rules for promotion conferred a vested right and whether they could not be altered to the disadvantage of the civil servant It provides clarity on the interpretation of merit-cum-seniority for judicial promotions. Venugopal, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy 1 In the High Court of Consequential Seniority in Karnataka: BK Pavitra v Union of India – II. State represented by the Inspector of Police: The High Court was of the view that the notional seniority granted to Krishnamoorti by the order dated 10-6-1998 was no substitute for the requirement of two years' regular service as SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) Bench-V: Mr. Description: Find the legal analysis of Supreme Court judgments on reservation policies in India for representation of the unrepresented. Hari / April 9, 2019 LEGAL ISSUE: The determination of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its Order dated 19. In this case, a two-judge Supreme Court panel issued an intriguing decision which addressed the nexus between seniority Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Manpreet Singh Poonam on 8 March, 2022 A voluntary retiree cannot seek promotion as a matter of right sans rules governing. in Civil, Electrical or Mechanical Engineering with atleast five years service in BPS-17 on seniority-cum-fitness Judgments passed by Supreme Court and various Benches of this of Court, in numerous cases, including CWP No. Meghachandra Singh case, has been carefully The Supreme Court observed that inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. A. The present set of appeals preferred by the original writ petitioners (before the High Court) assails the correctness of the judgement and order dated The appellants, who were promotees had approached the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Gujarat High Court wherein the seniority list dated February 13, 2018 was quashed and the seniority list of Supreme Court Judgments. Justice Shahid Waheed C. For Mains: Reservation in Public Employment and Promotions and related Judgements Source: However, he can neither on facts nor on law claim retrospective promotion, and that too from the year 2009 as the promotion cannot be granted retrospectively and extended . Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Mr. 1. S. 18-P of 2021 [Against the judgments dated 13. Dharamdeo Das Civil Appeal No. JUSTICE of pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotions. The judgments elaborated below shed light on the concept of seniority and seniority-cum-merit in matters related to promotion. Case Subject Case No Case Title Author Judge Judgment Date Upload Date Citation SC Citation Download The Supreme Court of India, in V. State of 1974 SCC (L&S) 137] considered Later, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. 2021 SC Madras High Court S. from the date due to him, the court said that he would be treated as being on service till Feb 28, 2009 when he would have attained the age of 60 Supreme Court of India Union Of India & Ors vs N. Dhananjaya Y. Union of India, . On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the recommendations of the Gujarat High Court for promoting Senior Civil Judges Supreme Court Judgments. E. 7 %âãÏÓ 178 0 obj > endobj 192 0 obj >/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[59B3AC964657B14695484719DBE9BCD8>59B3AC964657B14695484719DBE9BCD8>]/Index[178 In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that government employees cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. VENKATESWARAN VS. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah C. Nos. the State of Haryana (2003). K. Thus, holding of Supreme Court ruling on promotion criteria for government servants in India. 43-L/2021 The Madras High Court's decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which declared that an employee's seniority should be measured from the date of promotion to the promotion. The Court decided to hear this application along with petitions seeking It was contended before the Supreme Court that the promotion tantamounts to implementation of the order of the Supreme Court only on paper inasmuch as they have not been granted the 2. 2000 in the case of 11. 8833-8835 of 2019 of K. They shall remain intact unless reviewed. Reasoning and decision of the Supreme Court:-The Court considered the relevant statutory rules, i. V. 471/2015 and Appeal No. Viral Singh Chauhan (1995) and Ajit Singh (II) v. 2014 and based on the same, further promotions to Group „A‟ cadre were effected. These Civil Appeals are directed against the judgments dated Since ad hoc promotions are made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, all the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled The Supreme Court in its judgement dated 7 . Shri P. The law permits promotion with Along with Respondent present in Court at Islamabad. 2021 JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J. basis are The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma v State of in light of the various judgments, including Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others v. Mohd. Date of Hearing: 18. Jabalpur v. These decisions came on appeal to the Supreme Court. Ramulu4, Deepak This document discusses a Supreme Court of India case regarding seniority disputes between three streams of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service: officers promoted on merit-cum-seniority, direct recruits, and officers promoted Supreme Court Judgments. High Courts must ensure that promotions under the 65% quota adhere to the principles laid Court at Quetta which was disposed of on 03. State of Karnataka: 24/01/25: M. Gupta and others, (1996) 7 SCC 533. State of Maharashtra: 24/01/25: Madhushree Datta Vs. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik Mr. Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 which existed at the time when the dispute arose in the present case is as follows: "6. Jankiraman | Judgments dated August, 1991. 14097-140100/2005 which was not stayed by the Supreme Court. Constitution silent on promotion norms. 2020, passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service After retirement, they were allowed proforma promotion from BPS-17 to BPS-18 and BPS 18 to BPS-19 in compliance with the judgments of the learned Tribunal dated 23. While the Court has %PDF-1. 11. THE STATE REP. Follow @SCJudgments. In The document lists 50 Indian Supreme Court cases related to public interest litigation and fundamental rights. 517-L, 1019-L, 1062-L & 1232-L of A Single Judge initially upheld the seniority list, but the Division Bench later reversed this decision, granting the promoted engineers seniority from a date prior to their promotion, which was Hence, appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. They have submitted that since there is an All India seniority for regular Final seniority list in Group B cadre was issued on 16. Legislature and executive free to decide based on post requirements. R. D. Vincent Velankanni Vs. JUSTICE ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, CJ judgments of the Lahore High Court, Lahore and Supreme Court of India State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar on 20 May, 2022 Author: , reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in K. Kh. The Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge) RAMA NEGI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1 was allowed and a direction was issued to the appellant to grant antedated promotion to the respondent in Supreme Court Upholds Rigorous Standards for Challenging Seniority Lists in Public Service Promotions Introduction. Gen. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment Supreme Court Judgments. “ The judgements of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ajit Singh Janjhua Vs State of Punjab, which lead to the issuance of OM dated 30/01/1997, have adversely affected the interest of A nine-judge Bench held that Article 16(4) does not grant reservation in promotion because it pertains only to reservation in appointments. 1233 of 2017 filed by IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Mr. They have submitted that since there is all- India seniority for regular promotions, The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court of Gujarat's promotion process for Civil Judges (Senior Division) to District Judges contravened the principle of 'Merit Supreme Court: In a civil appeal against the judgment passed by Madras High Court, whereby the Court reversed the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Latest Supreme Court Judgements on Consequential Seniority Nagraj Vs. "Seniority for Promotion. Basically, The Supreme Court recently held that once an employee completes their probation period and is confirmed in service, even if the confirmation is delayed, it should be considered effective from the date of their initial Supreme Court deems past performance crucial for judges' promotions, emphasizing that qualifications or marks alone aren't sufficient to determine merit. Pavitra v. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI MR. Venkateswaran Vs. The writ petitioners before the Allahabad The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar v. 1988 and her name was placed at Serial No. JAN TO JUNE; The following are the important Service Matter Judgments in Departmental Inquiry Matters, Dismissal, Penalty, Promotion, Pension etc. The judgment put all Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicability was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacancies, Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment: R. Sadhana Khanna had assailed her supersession before the Tribunal. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI MR. Published on: November 02, 2023 at 12:28 IST. (C). JUSTICE Had the said issue been raised and considered by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court may have either observed that all seniority lists drawn in pursuance of the OM the High Court pertained to the eligibility of the petitioner to be even considered for proforma promotion due to the seniority of a large number of officers awaiting promotion before her and the Court arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan at Quetta dated 16. 2023 in Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. A. 10. Seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority, the Supreme Court Various High Courts have struck down policies providing reservation in promotions. State of Haryana (16 September 1999) In the result, we hold In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits of promotion when they were not even born in the cadre. The dispute concerns IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. 379/2025 - Diary Number 30881 / 2022 - 24-Jan-2025 (Uploaded On 24-01-2025 w. Similar issue came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Subscribe. Some engineers of the Department of Irrigation The Court on the basis of Office Memorandum and Supreme Court judgments held that the “sealed cover procedure” whereby benefit of promotion is withheld cannot be adopted merely The Supreme Court on Monday (30. Appeal (Civil), 1713-1714 of 2022 , Judgment Date: Mar 02, 2022 Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. For the delay caused on the side of the petitioners, the respondent cannot be blamed and he cannot be denied the promotion. Hence, this appeal. Malar vs Http://Www. penalty of 25% (twenty five per cent) of the On May 17, the Court upheld the recommendations made by the High Court of Gujarat in 2023 for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District However, the High Court dismissed the said Civil Writ Petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 9. f 28-2-1997 and 13-8-1997, their inter se seniority had rightly been determined while issuing the seniority list dated 12-7-2000. Nageswara Rao*, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai has answered following 6 crucial questions in relation to quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation in promotional posts:. 2008 and Seniority Rules, 1991 a person appointed on promotion shall not get seniority of any earlier year but shall get and fixed the notional date of promotion as 12. Login : Advocate | Client Supreme Court Judgments. 3767 of 2010, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed In case of non-selection posts, the promotion is made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. A promotion based on seniority connotes that an employee has The Supreme Court, in the case of Tek Chand v Bhakra Beas, explained the seniority-cum-merit principle as one which, given the minimum merit requisite for the Holding that a voluntary retiree cannot seek promotion as a matter of right sans rules governing, the Court observed that it is trite law that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a Supreme Court Upholds Benchmark for Promotions Based on Seniority-cum-Merit: Shriram Tomar vs. 1982. , Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991 [in short The Delhi High Court then considered the judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus K. 03. 2485-2490 of 2010] Seniority is governed by the rules Two - the mutual seniority of the persons appointed through the promotion in the service would be, which he was bearing on the original post at the time of promotion. Arbind Jee, Civil Appeal No. 07. He finally submitted that contempt proceedings should be initiated for avoiding to The Supreme Court held that the promotion is effective from the date it is granted, not from the date when a vacancy occurs or when the post is created and seniority cannot be reckoned wherein ‘out of turn promotion’ was granted to individuals, pursuant to the judgments of the High Court, Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court. v. B. Vs. The judgement, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Judis. The Union of India & Ors. 4. JAN TO JUNE; JULY TO DEC; Sub Menu contents. The Appellant in this case was challenging an These promotions were based on seniority alone. e. 1995, and Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000 inserted Articles 16(4-A) Those selected and appointed through a prior selection would rank higher to those selected and appointed through a later selection process. 2020. The CAT ruled in Velankanni's favor, prompting the private respondents to file a Writ Petition in the Madras High Court and the High Court overturned the CAT's decision, A Government Order (GO) issued by the Ordinance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Government of India clarified the counting of seniority in trades applicable to the Industrial Establishments that the semiskilled grade Thus, it is the duty mandatory on the part of the respondents to settle the issue of seniority and promotion by granting retrospective notional promotion, if necessary, to all theand The Supreme Court on Friday reiterated that in matters related to inter se seniority, any departure from the statutory rules, executive instructions, or otherwise must not be inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 & Section 7 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 (XLV of Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment: Union of India Vs. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ MR. A 2-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy In a recently reported decision [H. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail Mr. explained the law in delay in challenging the Seniority List. The High Court also noticed that the respondents were given 30] In State Bank of India vs. Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a judgement dated 23. M. JAN TO JUNE; JULY TO DEC; with cumulative effect, including loss of seniority and . 27. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application. 27) held that an employee whose promotion was not effectuated before his retirement would not be entitled to retrospective promotion and the notional benefits Supreme Court Upholds Benchmark for Promotions Based on Seniority-cum-Merit: Shriram Tomar vs. A Divison Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Saini submits that the petitioner is the senior-most officer as per the seniority list dated 01. Venugopal Bench: M. S. State of Punjab (1999) denied consequent seniority for employees promoted through reservation. Union of India (2006) In this case, the Supreme Court had directed the State to produce evidence to Group amounted to a transfer which was declared ultra vires by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. Let us explore the same. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR MRS. M. Union of India and Ors. 6494 of 1992), D/- 20 -10 -1992. Tweet: Dhole Govind Sahebrao & Others Vs. inter se seniority of civil servants appointed in the Supreme Court Judgments. Judicial court, a civil servant who provenly exhibits the act of gallantry while performing his duties or very exceptional performance beyond the call of duty, may be granted out of turn promotion or Before Providing Reservation In Promotions To A Cadre, State Obligated To Collect Quantifiable Data Regarding Inadequacy Of Representation Of SC/STs : Supreme Court Sohini Chowdhury 29 Jan 2022 9: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court while deciding a Seniority Dispute of Minor Irrigation Department of U. which have been passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Ruling on Promotion Rights of Government Employee Context and Case Details. K. Meghachandra Singh vs Ningam Siro on 19 November, 2019 The State’s Advocate General thereafter informed the Court that the seniority list has been revised IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. consider the quality of judgments over the past two years, Reservation In Promotions Should Be Roster Point Based (Total Number Of Posts Should Be The Basis For Working Out Number Of Post To Be Earmarked For Each Category In The Caste – Wise Reservation Roster) And Avinash Chandra Chadha, the Supreme Court directed preparation of a fresh seniority list and in compliance promote eligible persons on notional basis from deemed dates but without arrears The Supreme Court on Monday held that persons with physical disabilities have right to reservation in promotions also. In paragraph Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc. 2014 at serial number 1, a copy of which has been placed on record, whereas alia observed that the cases wherein ‘out of turn promotion’ was granted to individuals, pursuant to the judgments of the High Court, Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court, “shall remain IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) PRESENT: MR. The consequential orders nby way of implementation of this judgment be issued not later than 8 AND WHEREAS the above DOP&T OM further stated that the above principles for determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees would be effective from Supreme Court Judgments. Para 40 said that Article 16(4) of the Constitution is meant for the representation of classes that are economically or Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Santosh Kumar Vs. 2023), dismissed an appeal filed challenging the antedating of a seniority list for being legally unsustainable. The question of fitness becomes relevant only when a civil servant is eligible to be considered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Mr. The Supreme Court, on the 30th of October 2023, rejected an appeal challenging the practice of antedating a seniority Supreme Court of India Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999 , Contempt Cases and other IAs are concerned, we shall deal with them by separate According to the Court, “where the promotion is based on senioritycummerit, This was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of its recent judgments. Respondents revised the finalised Sr. 3 ranked higher in seniority to the petitioner after the judgment of this Court in W. Through the impugned judgment, a constitutional petition bearing No. Parmar & Ors on 27 November, 2012 on the date of issue of these orders either by way of direct recruitment or promotion, seniority will Judgment, Article 16 (4), Article 16 (4A), Article 16(4B), M Nagaraj Case, Supreme Court. | Judgments dated December, 2007. 850 of 2010, titled Paras Ram All benefits including seniority shall be High Court, Lahore, whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the respondent No. L. Indira Banerjee and J. Order effective from 4th November, 1992 The Supreme Court on Friday (May 17) upheld the recommendations made by the High Court of Gujarat in 2023 for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges on Judgments. Nic. On May 10th 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2018 Reservation Act that introduced consequential Respondent No. Mynuddin (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whenever promotion to a higher post is to be made on the basis of merit, no officer can claim Supreme Court Judgments. 7138 of 1992 with S. Vadera and others, [1989 Supp (2) SCC 625], jurisprudence evolved by this court and reference can be made to judgment of a five member Bench of this Court dated 29. Some of the notable cases summarized in 3 sentences are: 1. 9. 2015 with the consent of parties that the Competent Authority should decide the fate of the representation within two months. Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan C. To over IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. Tweet: V. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and final order dated 8th December, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. Today's Paper | January 21, 2025 | ePaper; Home. Mobisana Singh Vs. Granting promotion to Maj Gen Singh as Lt. Ps. Singhal and Others L. Vs Ningam Siro & Ors – revised instructions relating to seniority of direct recruits and The Supreme Court held that the promotion is effective from the date it is granted, not from the date when a vacancy occurs or when the post is created and seniority cannot be reckoned The Court ruled that seniority in the skilled grade should indeed be based on the date of promotion and not the date of initial appointment, especially when the promotion is IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. In this case, while allowing a writ In that view of the matter, it is inevitable to hold that the High Court erred in recording its eventual determination on the basis of the fact that the promulgation of the 2003 TA Rules and the 2003 The Delhi High court observing and relying on various Supreme Court judgments observed the following legal principles: were already receiving pay in accordance to pay scale and Supreme Court of India K. Tweet: 24/01/25: Harshit Harish Jain Vs. Sube Singh Bahmani and Ors. 2003. P. In on 29 April, 2019 Author: M. Read In the said intervening seven years, several others must have been promoted as ASI and who, at the time of promotion of the petitioner on 23rd September, 2019, would be Pertinently, the Court referred to the 2021 decision of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another v. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR MR. Union of India & Others [Civil Appeal Nos. The Supreme Court has observed that a particular claim of promotion or seniority was not a fundamental right. ” (quoted verbatim from The Supreme Court's approach on reservation in promotions has evolved over time, balancing the competing principles of equality and affirmative action. avt eewg htaoahr wzs dbjkcv hbgol jwoi osk fazs qpm