Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

No Legitimate Expectation Beyond Merit List of 50: Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision on Army Permanent Commission

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment on February 08, 2024, concerning the grant of Permanent Commission in the Army. The Court upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had dismissed a petition seeking Permanent Commission on the grounds of legitimate expectation beyond the top 50 candidates in the merit list.

The petitioner, a Short Service Commissioned Medical Officer, sought Permanent Commission based on the Departmental Permanent Commission (DPC) held in June 2012. His contention was based on his placement at Serial No. 53 of the merit list, arguing that unfilled vacancies from the top 50 should be filled from the waiting list. The primary issue revolved around whether candidates beyond the top 50 merit list have a legitimate expectation for Permanent Commission when vacancies remain unfilled.

The Court observed, "The applicant cannot claim the benefit of legitimate expectation as this Tribunal with regard to the same selection has dearly held that it is only the 50 most meritorious candidates who had the legitimate expectations." The assessment hinged on the interpretation of the term "legitimate expectation" and its applicability beyond the top 50 candidates.

The Court discussed the principles of legitimate expectation, citing judgments in similar cases. It emphasized that legitimate expectation does not extend beyond the specified merit list, in this case, the top 50 candidates.

The High Court dismissed the petition, aligning with the Tribunal's view that the petitioner, being 53rd in the merit list, did not fall within the scope of legitimate expectation. The Court concluded that there was no obligation on the part of the respondents to operate the waiting list beyond the top 50 candidates.

Date of Decision: February 08, 2024

Maj Vishal (Now Lt Col) vs. Union of India and Ors

 

Latest Legal News