Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court

Promotion to Higher Posts Subject to Recruitment Rules and Medical Fitness, Dismisses Plea for Notional Promotion: High Court of Delhi

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling concerning service law and promotion eligibility, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking retrospective promotion in the Border Security Force (BSF). The court emphasized that “administrative procedures, including the framing of recruitment rules and assessing fitness, must be adhered to in service promotions.”

Legal Point of Judgment: The crux of the judgment revolved around the petitioner’s plea for promotion to the rank of Inspector General, Chief Law Officer in BSF. The Court focused on whether the principles of promotion eligibility, legitimate expectation, and the impact of delayed framing of recruitment rules could entitle the petitioner to notional promotion and consequential benefits.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner, who joined BSF in 1984, challenged the rejection of his request for promotion, citing medical fitness standards and the unavailability of recruitment rules as reasons. Despite an unfortunate accident leading to amputation, the petitioner rose through ranks, ultimately aiming for the post of CLO/IG, upgraded in 2013.

Promotion Eligibility: The court observed that eligibility is governed by recruitment rules and medical fitness standards. Any promotion must align with these pre-requisites.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The court noted that this doctrine does not automatically confer promotion, especially without a consistent past practice or specific assurance from the authorities.

Delayed Recruitment Rules: Highlighting administrative laxity, the court nonetheless ruled that such delay does not justify retrospective promotion, particularly when the petitioner retired before the rules were framed.

Comparative Seniority and Litigation: The inter-se seniority dispute and pending litigation further complicated the petitioner’s claim for promotion.

Decision: The petition was dismissed, with the Court holding that the petitioner’s claim for the year 2013-2014 lacked merit due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria and procedural requirements.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2024

K J S Bains vs. Union of India And Ors.

Similar News