Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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"]

Latest Legal News