Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Supreme Court Grants Notional Seniority to Candidates with Revised Marks on Re-evaluation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023 , Supreme Court has held ,  in case Sunil & Ors.Vs High Court of Delhi & Ors. etc., that candidates whose marks have been revised on account of re-evaluation have the right to notional seniority based on the revised marks. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjay Karol passed the judgement.

The matter came up before the Supreme Court in the form of an appeal against a decision of the High Court of Delhi which had set aside the order of the Special Committee of three judges that had granted notional seniority to candidates whose marks were revised on re-evaluation.

The issue before the Court was whether the appellants, whose marks were increased pursuant to the exercise of re-evaluation, were entitled to be ranked in accordance with the revised marks in the merit list which determines their seniority for future promotions.

The Court noted that the decision of the Special Committee to grant notional seniority was justified, as the marks of the candidates whose seniority was revised had increased on account of the correction of an error in the earlier merit list. The candidates whose marks had been increased were not at fault and could not be deprived of their position in the select list dated 30.01.2017.

The Court held that the grant of seniority on the basis of revised marks was necessary and that the failure to grant such seniority would render the process of re-evaluation redundant.

The Court further observed that the earlier decision of re-evaluation of 13 candidates had attained finality, and that it was not open for the respondents to subsequently make a grievance that the re-evaluation of the marks of 13 candidates could not be at their disadvantage.

The Court also held that the decisions cited by the respondents were not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the appointment of the appellants had been upheld, and the grant of inter-se seniority was essentially a correction in the select list dated 30.01.2017.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court. The decision of the Special Committee dated 01.10.2018 was restored, and the respective appellants were held entitled to notional seniority with effect from 30.01.2017 in accordance with the revised marks on re-evaluation.

Sunil & Ors.Vs High Court of Delhi & Ors. etc.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/28-Apr-2023-Sunil-Vs-HC-Delhi.pdf"]

Latest Legal News