Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Provisional Inclusion in IAS Select List Justified; UPSC and State’s Decision Stands: Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition in IAS Promotion Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)’s order in the case involving Arun Kumar Singh’s promotion in the Indian Administrative Service. The Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, dismissed the writ petition challenging CAT’s order that disposed of a contempt petition concerning the provisional inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the IAS Select List.

The central issue revolved around the challenge against CAT’s order, which addressed the petitioner’s promotion and provisional inclusion in the IAS Select List, based on the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.

Petitioner Arun Kumar Singh filed a writ petition, contesting CAT’s order on the grounds that his provisional inclusion in the IAS Select List was unjustified. Singh’s contention stemmed from the argument that the departmental proceedings pending against him were not grounds to withhold his integrity certificate, thereby making his inclusion in the list provisional.

Review of Provisional Inclusion: The High Court scrutinized the petitioner’s contention alongside the regulations and directives of the Tribunal, taking into account responses from UPSC and the State Government regarding Singh’s integrity and the pending disciplinary proceedings.

Role of UPSC and State Government: The Court examined the Union Public Service Commission’s and the State Government’s roles in the decision-making process, particularly their response to chargesheet issuance before the notification of the select list.

Judicial Precedents: Referring to Supreme Court precedents in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, the Court clarified the scope of contempt proceedings in reviewing compliance with judicial orders.

The Delhi High Court concluded that no fault could be found with CAT’s order and upheld the petitioner’s liberty to seek remedy against UPSC’s order dated July 31, 2017. The writ petition and related applications were dismissed as infructuous.

 Date of Decision: April 09, 2024

Arun Kumar Singh Versus Union of India & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News