Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Eligibility Criteria For Promotion Cannot Be Ignored or Waived: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment by the High Court of Delhi, the court has underlined the significance of adhering to eligibility criteria in promotional examinations. The judgment, delivered on December 7, 2023, came in response to an application filed by a petitioner seeking permission to apply for promotion from Scale II to Scale IV within a government organization.

The court’s observation regarding the eligibility criteria for promotional exams was a key highlight of the judgment. In its ruling, the court stated, “The eligibility criteria for participating in this promotional exercise have been clearly enunciated in the notices issued. Every applicant who wishes to participate in this promotional exercise is required to cross the threshold of the eligibility criteria, since that would be the foundation of selecting as to which candidate is fit to be promoted to the next scale. These eligibility criteria cannot be ignored or waived, just for the asking.”

The petitioner had sought permission to appear in the promotional examination, despite presently holding a position in Scale II and lacking the requisite three years of continuous service in Scale III, as mandated by the eligibility criteria. Additionally, the court noted that the last date for applying for the examination had already passed, further complicating the petitioner’s request.

The court ultimately dismissed the petitioner’s application, stating that eligibility criteria must be met before a candidate can sit for an examination. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining fairness and adherence to established rules in government promotions. It highlights the court’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and opportunities of all eligible candidates, ensuring that promotional prospects and seniority among government employees remain unaffected.

Date of Decision: December 7, 2023

SHALINI SINGH  VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS.   

Latest Legal News