Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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