CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on CSIR Promotion Row, Says "Promotion Denial to Respondent  was Incorrect"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, affirmed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning the promotion disputes within the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The apex court, led by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, upheld the High Court's ruling that reversed the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3, deeming them ineligible under the CSIR Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982.

The dispute arose when the Director General of CSIR contested the High Court's decision, arguing that respondent no. 1 was not eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary due to not independently performing the duties of a Section Officer. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated, "We are of the opinion that the action of the appellant in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by the High Court."

The apex court carefully analyzed the eligibility criteria as stipulated under the CSIR rules. It was noted that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were promoted based on certificates indicating their experience as Section Officers, but without formal appointments. In contrast, respondent no. 1's formal appointment as Section Officer in 2004 was acknowledged and undisputed.

The Supreme Court also addressed the appellant's merit-based promotion argument. It clarified that the primary focus was on meeting the eligibility criteria, asserting, "Thus, there was no impediment for the promotion by selection of respondent No.1 to the post of Under Secretary under the statutory rules."

The judgment, delivered on January 29, 2024, concluded with the dismissal of the appeals filed by CSIR, stating, "In view of the above, we are of the firm view that the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court does not require any interference."

Date of Decision: 29th January 2024

DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH(CSIR) VS J.K. PRASHAR & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News