High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Overturns Promotion of Unqualified Assistant Registrar, Orders Reconsideration of Senior Applicant

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed the promotion of Mehfooz Ahmad to the post of Assistant Registrar, citing his lack of requisite qualifications and procedural irregularities in the promotion process. The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra in Writ Petition No. 28381 of 2018, filed by Ahmad, challenging his supersession by an unqualified colleague.

The case originated in 2018 when Mehfooz Ahmad, initially appointed as a Stenographer in 1985 and subsequently promoted through various posts, challenged the promotions of Respondent No. 2, Prashant P. Gade. Ahmad argued that Gade, who held only a Higher Secondary School Certificate, lacked the necessary qualifications for the posts of Private Secretary and Assistant Registrar. Despite Ahmad's seniority and qualifications, including a Master's degree and an LLB, he was overlooked in favor of Gade.

Educational Qualifications: The court found that Gade did not possess the requisite educational qualifications for the post of Stenographer, Private Secretary, or Assistant Registrar. The High Court's 1996 rules mandate a graduate degree and proficiency in English Shorthand for these positions, qualifications Gade lacked.

Procedural Improprieties: The court noted that Ahmad's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from 2012 to 2017 were not communicated to him, violating established legal precedents. The Departmental Promotion Committee's (DPC) decision, based on these uncommunicated ACRs, was deemed invalid.

Judicial Review: The court emphasized that appointments and promotions must adhere to statutory rules and qualifications. It reaffirmed that the administrative powers of the Chief Justice are subject to judicial review, especially when appointments do not comply with prescribed regulations.

The judgment delved deeply into the statutory requirements and procedural norms for promotions within the Madhya Pradesh High Court. It highlighted significant precedents from the Supreme Court, such as Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, which mandate the communication of ACRs to ensure transparency and fairness in promotions. The court found that Gade's promotion violated these principles and the High Court's recruitment rules.

The High Court directed the DPC to reconsider Ahmad's promotion from the date of wrongful supersession, August 14, 2016. It also ordered the reversion of Gade to a position suited to his qualifications, a decision to be implemented within 30 days. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding merit and procedural integrity in administrative appointments.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

Mehfooz Ahmad v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

 

Similar News