High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

“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