NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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