Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Delhi High Court Directs Central Government to 'Consider the Grievance of the Petitioners' Over SSB Promotions and Deputations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to "consider the grievance of the petitioners" in cases related to promotions and deputations within the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). The ruling comes in response to writ petitions filed by SSB officers holding the rank of Second-in-Command and Deputy Commandant.

The petitioners had challenged a Signal dated 14th August 2023, which called for nominations of officers from other Central Armed Police Forces to fill up Commandant posts in SSB. The officers argue that such a decision "would hamper their promotional avenues."

The Court also mentioned that in terms of the Recruitment Rules dated 17th June 2013, priority should be given to filling up the post by promotion before considering the option of deputation. The petitioners' counsel argued that those considered for deputation "have not undergone promotional courses as prescribed by the Director-General of the SSB."

One of the key issues raised by the petitioners was the Central Government's power of relaxation as per Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that although the petitioners were not eligible as of the date, they were only "short of a few months from completing the requisite five years of regular service." He highlighted that such power has been exercised in the past "in the interest of the force."

Another pivotal point was about the morale and career progression of the SSB officers. The Court observed that if officers from other forces were brought in on deputation, "the morale of the officers serving in the SSB for last several years is likely to be affected."

The High Court disposed of the petitions, directing that they should be placed before the competent authority i.e., the Central Government. The authority has also been directed to "consider the request of the petitioners for exercise of the power conferred of relaxation and/or appointment or grant of local rank to the officers."

The Court clarified that the competent authority should take "an independent view of the matter without being influenced by anything stated in this order on merit."

 Date of Decision: 20 October  2023

SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/20-Oct-2023-SanjayKumar-Vs-UOI.pdf"]

Similar News