Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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