Discriminatory Denial of Promotion Contrary to Article 14: Delhi High Court

140
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Fees Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, ruling that the denial of an ‘Out of Turn Promotion’ to Harinder Singh was discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

“Discriminatory denial of promotion, despite parity in service merits with Constable Joginder Singh, observed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” observed the High Court in its judgement.

Harinder Singh, a policeman with commendable service, sought an ‘Out of Turn Promotion’ after his colleague, Constable Joginder Singh, was promoted for similar achievements. A pending criminal case had initially hampered Singh’s chances, but it was later quashed by the High Court. Despite this, he was only awarded an ‘Asadharan Karya Puraskar’ instead of the promotion he sought.

The Central Administrative Tribunal had initially ruled in favor of Singh, stating that the denial was discriminatory. “No adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner to deny ‘Out of Turn Promotion’. The quashing of proceedings acknowledged as rendering a person acquitted for all intents and purposes, negating adverse implications on promotion eligibility,” stated the Tribunal.

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, stressing that competent authorities must act “reasonably, fairly, and in public interest” when considering promotions. The court emphasized that such decisions must withstand the “constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.”

The High Court’s decision sets a precedent that could impact similar cases where ‘Out of Turn Promotions’ have been denied due to pending or quashed criminal cases. It reaffirms the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional guarantees against discrimination.

The court also directed that the ‘Out of Turn Promotion’ for Harinder Singh should date back to when the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were filed, dismissing writ petitions from both Singh and the Commissioner of Police & Ors.

 Date of Decision: 31.10.2023

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. VS HARINDER SINGH        

Download Judgment

Share: