Supreme court judgments on seniority promotions. M. 2000 in the judgment in Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. JUSTICE SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI CIVIL APPEALS NO. Before we consider the rival submissions made by the Aug 7, 2016 · “ 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 Government Servants belonging to Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes category in the matter of seniority on promotion to to a higher post in one batch shall on their promotion to the higher post retain their inter-se seniority in the lower post. 1 (2006) 8 SCC 212 2 approached this Court with the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2019 passed by Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. (C) Nos. 5094 of 2006) UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS . 08 of 2021) Apr 12, 2013 · Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. State of Kerala2. In the year 2013, post of Superintendent became vacant. On May 17, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the recommendations of the Gujarat High Court for promoting Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges based on the merit-cum-seniority principle. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456), whereby this Court declared that the concept of out of turn promotions was unconstitutional and against the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. This judgment is under challenge in these appeals. Ed. Union of India, . Rule 8. It is also mentioned that seniority list of feeder cadre has not been finalised on account of pendency of the matter before the Tribunal and the High Court and that in terms of directions of the High Court, recommendation of the review DPC has been placed before 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. P. 2019 issued by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. , where the Court overturned a Division Bench decision of the Nagaland Administrative Committee referred to Full Bench judgment of the said Court in P. 2013, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. Union of India (2006) In this case, the Supreme Court had directed the State to produce evidence to apply the policy of reservation in promotion. SENTHUR AND ANOTHER VERSUS M. Nagaraj & Ors. Its judgement allowed reservation in promotion to continue for five years post November 16th, 1992. Aug 3, 2021 · Syed Mahmood [AIR 1968 SC 1113 : (1968) 3 SCR 363] while considering Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore State Civil Services General Recruitment Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority­cum­merit, this Court has observed that the Rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of “seniority with the judgments of the Tribunal and High Court (which have been confirmed by this Court), the petitioner would have received promotion earlier. Parmar & Others, (2012) 13 SCC 340. 2017 based on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in N. 2018 and the consequent seniority list dated 13th February 2018. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. In the decision reported as AIR 2004 SC 255 P. 1994. Sep 4, 2017 · The judgment put all reservations in promotion granted to SCs/STs in public employment at risk. ” 6 The respondent instituted contempt proceedings before the High Court of Delhi. Union of India & Ors. Later, Writ Petition No. Case Subject Case No Case Title Author Judge Judgment Date Upload Date Citation SC Citation Download Apr 20, 2021 · Latest Supreme Court Judgements on Consequential Seniority Nagraj Vs. 09. 11. seniority list of District & Sessions Judges (BS-21) as stood on 02. , the private respondents before the Supreme Court could not be promoted on Regular Basis as Assistant Directors in time on account of W. 2021 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi in Appeals No. 17. 10. On 11 December 2017, the Staff Promotion Committee finalized the seniority list. Chandrachud, J . 8102/2012, 20/2013, 99/2013 & 104/2013 Consequential Seniority in Karnataka: BK Pavitra v Union of India – II. After some time, on 19. Parmar case. [Para 2. The Division Bench placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta and Others vs. However, the respondents claimed the entitlement be counted as service completed for the purpose of promotion. vs. Jun 3, 2016 · On 19th September, 2013, the petitioner made a representation for correction of his seniority and claimed consequential relief by way of promotion to SAO, Grade-I with effect from 1st January, 2007. March 30, 2022. Accordingly, the High Court by its judgment dated 07. The Court took this into account. 3. Jul 31, 2021 · 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 Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgement set aside an order made by the learned single judge of that court and held that the present Appellants (hereafter referred to as “direct recruits” or “DRs”) were not entitled to claim seniority over and above the respondents, hereafter called Oct 30, 2023 · Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge) V. This batch of appeals has arisen from a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 20 December 2023. 04. In the said judgment, this Court quashed the seniority list both provisional and final so far as it related to the appointees either by direct recruitment or by promotion in the DHJS, “We direct RBI to grant notional promotion to Mr. SINHA, J. 8. 1988 and her name was placed at Serial No. The judgments elaborated below shed light on the concept of seniority and seniority-cum-merit in matters related to promotion. He was reinstated in service by an order dated 8 March 2021. CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION . 05. Feb 11, 2020 · Later, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. The DPC’s action of not considering or taking decision for promotion of respondent was, thus, not sustainable in law. 2011 allowed the Writ Petition Nos. 52-K TO 71-K OF 2022 (Against the judgment dated 03. Consequential seniority allows reserved category candidates to retain seniority over general category peers. The petitioner has been deprived of this due to the delay of the respondents. 19565-67 of 2019 to challenge the decisions of the High Court. 187 of 2010, 188 of 2010 and 220 of 2010. The Supreme Court answered the question in Para 6 of the judgment thus: By promotion in the order of seniority subject to rejection of unfit on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. at Sep 2, 2020 · Final seniority list in Group B cadre was issued on 16. 8833-8835 of 2019 of K. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR MR. State of Punjab (1999) denied consequent seniority for employees promoted through reservation. 1994 vide Notification dated 10. (supra). February 24, 2022. 5 Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. 20011/1/2008-Estt. inter se seniority of civil servants appointed in the same calendar year—Persons appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year shall, as a class, be senior to those appointed by promotion or by of pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotions. A consequential prayer was made for restoring the seniority list dated 7th September 2016. The seniority inter se of persons appointed to posts in the same grade in a functional unit shall be determined: (2) The seniority of the persons appointed by initial recruitment to the seniority in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court. K. 2010, and the Judgments of this Court dated 30. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. where the recruitment year shall be the year in which Supreme Court’s Ruling on Promotion Rights of Government Employee Context and Case Details. 2008 and 09. 2 of O. 10 The respondents instituted a writ petition before the High Court challenging the seniority list to the extent that the Expert Committee as well as the Government Chagan was allowed. Assailing the impugned judgment and orders, Mr P. 58 of 2011 on 30. Jul 31, 2021 · The court recalled the promotions on the ground that they were ineligible under the Regulation, 1994. As per Haneefa’s judgment, the Administrative Committee found that the candidates appointed in excess of the quota were entitled to seniority from the date the such candidates were adjusted against the available vacancies within Nov 14, 2022 · The Supreme Court in its earlier catena of judgments has held that the inter se seniority in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules. Union of India and others, reported at (1996) 1 All India Services Law Journal, was submitted on behalf of the petitioners. The State of Kerala & Ors. Respondents revised the finalised seniority list by publishing a draft seniority list on 1. Index On these facts the Supreme Court observed that the controversy is as to whether the respondents arc entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which, admittedly they had not worked but they have been given notional promotion from the deemed date. the date of entry in a particular service or the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing seniority inter se between one officer or the other or between one group of officers and the other recruited from Oct 7, 2019 · Sr. 5 %äüöß 2 0 obj > stream xœ•XË®ã6 Ýç+¼. 819 of 2019, in between Rajesh Kumar Singh and Another vs. v. Moanungba & Ors. com Dec 29, 2003 · This matter had also come up for consideration in various court cases both before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and in several cases the relevant judgment had brought out the inappropriateness of direct recruits of later years becoming senior to promotees with long years of service. Since ad hoc promotions are made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, all the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates covered in the relevant seniority list within the total number of such vacancies against which ad hoc promotions are to be made, should be considered in the order of their general seniority as per the gradation list shall be no reservation in promotions. 2014 and based on the same, further promotions to Group „A‟ cadre were effected. 2011 was disposed of in terms of the judgment in Writ Petition No187 of 2010 and other Writ Petitions. , (2000) 8 SCC 25. 06. S. 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 Additional Director General (Works) which had been laid down in the relevant Rules as the eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Director General (Works). To over Mar 7, 2022 · 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 accordingly, consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of retrospective notional promotion on par with his immediate juniors in accordance with the Feb 28, 2012 · It also directed the DPC to be constituted as on 01. J U D G M E N T . See full list on scconline. This ruling came in the case titled Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. 1. He finally submitted that contempt proceedings should be initiated for avoiding to implement the aforesaid judgments of this Court against the officers responsible in this regard. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. O. The three elements that must be proved are – Further backwardness; Inadequate representation; Maintenance of administrative judgments of this Court, i. 2. Judgment Summary: Reservation in Promotion (Clarifications) retrospective promotion. 2017, thirty-four Judgment. 15 of the Seniority List dated 31. Reservations in Promotion Day #1: SC Scrambles to Hear all Petitions. 20 and pursuant to the impugned judgment, his seniority is likely to be affected, in that, his juniors are going to be made senior. Reservation in Promotion #2: SC Keen To Resolve Lingering Data Question. e. Ramakotaiah and others v. 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 cadre. Group amounted to a transfer which was declared ultra vires by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. State of J&K and Others1 to come to the conclusion that promotees were entitled to promotion from a date anterior to their appointment. S. ". In this case, a two-judge Supreme Court panel issued an intriguing decision which addressed the nexus between seniority difficulties and reservations for members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs) in promotions. 2010] 2. The iii. Pavitra v. Reliance was also placed upon para 31 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in M. The High Court relied upon Viman Vaman Awale to hold that the seniority is to be given from the date of first appointment whereas the judgment in Bhawna v. April 21, 2022. 1 (2000) 7 SCC 561 07. 508 to 526/2020 and Appeal No. Appellants . There is no dispute on facts between the parties and the only issue that has arisen before the Court is whether or not the judgment of this Court dated 15. 2014 his encadrement has to be made accordingly. Viral Singh Chauhan (1995) and Ajit Singh (II) v. Leave granted. Ms. No. . Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors. 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. On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, eighty-two doctors were promoted in BPS-16 on 02. ” 7. 6 was distinguished observing that it was a case where the teacher was not holding the qualification of B. 11781 of 2019) Chandan Banerjee & Ors . It was submitted by them that the State Government has not brought any law in terms of the judgment of this Court in M. 4. 2009 instead of 28. W¤ –€‹Î«Àì¦ ÐÅ «¾€Ao v3¿_¾lÙ‰r âbœX¢ÈCòèH ×C÷m÷Oç:×;Ì],±Ç!v9@Ÿ tÿþ¾ûù»îoµ` _ FÿÜ o»€Ø—n€Òç\ºÛoÝ÷Wè t·?¾¼98À›Cç þÍ }‹. By the impugned judgment, the seniority list dated 13th February 2018 was quashed and the seniority list of 7th September 2016 was restored with a 3. 9. 8. Respondents . 948 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. Dr Dhananjaya Y. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is just contrary to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS, SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER Contempt Petition (Civil), 638 of 2017 , Judgment Date: Oct 01, 2021 4. Therefore, seniority cannot be the guiding principle for promotion once the appellant was found to be meritorious by the Promotion Board. This was challenged by the Government before the Supreme Court and it was contended that crucial date for DPC should be April or May, 1995, because the DPC will have to consider the ACRs for the year, 1994. Nair on the post of Assistant Manager Grade – ‘A’, to be effective from the date of presentation of the writ petition before the High Court, i. Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. ¹Áåà iæðËíÓîrÛ}nº†œúÔ¥L` ] 7Š ã!°Ó …9ÊÀ™ƒ]ä«Ä5 W (öàä% †ÉÒ ©‡òª/… $ —6P O I úô€Ú judgement and order dated 04. . 2009 and 24. Officer/AA&C. State of Maharashtra & Ors. promotion with consequential seniority to SC/ST candidates, they are not entitled to claim seniority in the promoted categories over the general category candidates. Vs. N Premachandran vs. 3 Seniority of SC/ST Government servants on their promotion by virtue of rule of reservation roster SC/ST Government servants on their promotion by virtue of rule of 17. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldip Chand Vs. M. B. Aug 27, 1991 · 797 In the normal course, on the conclu- sion of the disciplinary/court proceedings, the sealed cover or covers may be opened, and in case the officer is completely exonerated i. At the same time, the judgment in Malook Singh’s case would nonetheless enure to the benefit of those who were parties to the proceedings but would not adversely affect the rights of others who 10 SLP No 8534-35 of 1999 11 LPA Nos 471, 472 and 476 of 2011 Aug 16, 2021 · In its judgement dated 27. , 27th September, 2006 and actual promotion from 15th September, 2014, i. the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the available direct recruits and promotees, for assignment of inter-se seniority, would refer to the direct recruits and promotees who are appointed against the vacancies of a particular recruitment year. 07. Crl. The consequential orders nby way of implementation of this judgment be issued not later than 8 weeks from today. (D) dated 11. 12. K. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh Rule 4 provides for the determination of seniority where promotions are made at the same time on the basis of seniority-cum-merit to a class of posts or cadre: “4. has been granted pro forma promotion as SP (BS-18) with effect from 31. N. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under: for the purpose of seniority and promotion. by this Court on 22. 2014 as referred to above. A regularly appointed Junior Administrative Grade-II officer with a minimum of eighteen years approved service shall be eligible to be considered for promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade I Nov 14, 2022 · Case Title: B. Inter-se seniority of the officers from each feeder grade will be maintained. Haneefa v. The said writ petition is allowed, following the judgment of this Court in the case of M. 16. 2014 was applicable to the %PDF-1. 2. Rajeev Nain Upadhyay and 24 Others whereby the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single High Court has correctly interpreted the relevant statute and has recorded a finding that the effective date of promotion should have been 01. R. 03. 01. 48/2016 5. 4. Civil Appeal No 5582 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. On May 10th 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2018 Reservation Act that introduced consequential seniority for SC/STs in Karnataka public employment. Aug 17, 2022 · Reservation in Promotions #3: Bihar Gov Inclined to Withdraw Appeal on Old Reservation Policy. , the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court. no statutory penalty, including that of censure, is imposed, the earliest possible date of his promotion but for the pendency of the disciplinary/court proceedings “3. The working-paper for promotion of the respondent was prepared where his name appeared at Serial No. 2010. promotion is placed before the DPC, the DPC is required by law to consider the case of the employee put up for promotion and in doing so, it has to consider the case of employee for promotion fairly, justly and honestly. 9 In these circumstances, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is in contempt of the judgment of this Court. 1. Mar 9, 2022 · The Court made clear that a mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process. A promotion based on seniority connotes that an employee has been promoted in the organization because of the duration of their service. The controversy that arises before this Court pertains to the recommendations made by the High Court on its administrative side for the appointment of in-service candidates as thirteen Aug 16, 2021 · inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees - Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 90% quota for promotion on seniority-cum-fitness basis among the holders of the posts of Assistant/Accountant, who have completed five years’ service. 2014. Court, the department has preferred the present appeal. During the appeal, the court noted that the Regulations provided that appointment by promotion had to be made on the basis of seniority, and no employee could claim it as a matter of right. 2014 but the appellant’s promotion was deferred due to some pending inquiry. Versus . IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: MR. The promotion to the rank of Air Vice Marshal is on the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”. 2012 in the said case. They relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Vinod Prakash Nautiyal (supra) by which Section 3 (7) of the 1994 Act was declared unconstitutional. 12. Patwalia, the learned Senior Counsel contends that seniority of the direct recruits in the MPS Grade-II Cadre must be reckoned from the time when vacancies applicant including promotion in JA Grade on the basis of his seniority as per the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in NR Parmar Case and DOPT OM dated 04. Vs Ningam Siro & Ors - revised instructions relating to seniority of direct recruits and promotees and inter-se seniority thereof considered for promotion to the post of Admn. uxk cwlov epvbsos vfrn nfkch ugy ooioqk kaue pqyl rxbay