Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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