Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order on Promotion: “The Right to be Considered for Promotion is Fundamental,” Affirms Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the fundamental right to fair consideration for promotion, the Delhi High Court today upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision mandating a retrospective review of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for respondent No.4, an employee within the Military Engineering Services.

The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, delivered the judgment in the case of W.P.(C) 4017/2023. The Court’s decision centered on the principle that “the right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India,” highlighting the importance of equitable and fair promotion processes in employment.

The case revolved around the eligibility criteria for promotion from the post of Assistant Surveyor of Works (ASW) to Surveyor of Works (SW) within the Military Engineering Services. A key point of contention was the equivalence of a Civil Engineering degree with the final examination of the Institution of Surveyors (India), a matter previously settled by the Supreme Court.

The petitioners, B.N. Singh and another employee, challenged the Tribunal’s order on the grounds that it affected their seniority and was made without their inclusion in the original application. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, emphasizing the Tribunal’s rightful direction for a review DPC in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on qualification equivalence.

The Court also noted the significant delay in the consideration of respondent No.4 for promotion, despite the Supreme Court’s clarification on the equivalence of qualifications. This delay was deemed unjust, leading to the decision to uphold the Tribunal’s order for a retrospective review.

Date of Decision: November 20, 2023

B.N. SINGH AND ANR. VS  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Latest Legal News