Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“Supreme Court Directs Promotion in Ministerial Group ‘C’ Posts: ‘Lack of Promotions Since 2015 Affecting Appellants and Others Similarly Situated’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On September 4, 2023 – In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to promote four candidates to Ministerial Group “C” posts. The Court observed, “Lack of promotions since 2015 is affecting appellants and others similarly situated.”

The case revolved around the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group “C” Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001. The appellants, Rajendra Prasad & Ors., were aggrieved by the denial of promotion despite their seniority. They argued that the High Court had dismissed their writ petition on the grounds that those who obtained higher marks were promoted.

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, who presided over the case, noted that “for the last eight years, though there are vacancies, Group ‘C’ posts have not been filled from the source of recruitment as provided in Rule 5 of the said Rules.”

Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the promotion of four candidates who are immediately below the candidates promoted in the process of 2014. The Court also specified that this decision “shall not be treated as a precedent.”

The State of Uttar Pradesh has been directed to take the necessary action within a period of two months. The judgment has been hailed as a significant step in ensuring that promotions are conducted in a timely and fair manner.

Date of Decision:  September 04, 2023   

Rajendra Prasad & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/04-Sep-2023_Rajender_Vs_State_UP.pdf"]

Latest Legal News