TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Resolution No. 1.1, stresses integrity in promotions, orders review of adverse entries.</h1> <h3>GURDIAL SINGH FIJJI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS</h3> GURDIAL SINGH FIJJI Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS - 1979 AIR 1622, 1979 SCC (2) 368 Issues Involved:1. Validity of Resolution No. 1.1 in relation to Regulations 4 and 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.2. Non-inclusion of the appellant in the Select List due to the absence of an integrity certificate.3. Consideration of adverse entries in the appellant's confidential record.Summary:1. Validity of Resolution No. 1.1:The Supreme Court addressed whether Resolution No. 1.1 was ultra vires of Regulations 4 and 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The High Court had quashed Resolution No. 1.1, stating it was an executive instruction that imposed additional requirements not specified in the regulations, leading to potential arbitrariness. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Resolution No. 1.1 was valid and within the scope of the regulations. The Court emphasized that integrity is a crucial aspect of merit and suitability, and the government has the authority to prescribe criteria for assessing these qualities. The resolution did not confer unguided discretion on the Chief Secretary but required certification based on annual confidential reports.2. Non-inclusion in the Select List:The appellant's non-inclusion in the Select List was partly due to the absence of an integrity certificate. The High Court found that the Selection Committee had another reason for not including the appellant, stating he was 'not found suitable otherwise.' The Supreme Court noted that the non-issuance of the integrity certificate was linked to an adverse report from 1966-67, which had not been resolved. The Court held that the non-issuance of the integrity certificate was unjustified as the adverse report had not been properly considered.3. Consideration of Adverse Entries:The Supreme Court highlighted the principle that adverse entries in confidential records must be communicated and considered before denying promotional opportunities. The appellant's adverse report from 1966-67 had not been resolved due to procedural delays. The Court directed the State Government to dispose of the appellant's representations regarding the adverse report within two months and instructed the Selection Committee to reconsider the appellant's inclusion in the Select List based on the government's decision and the appellant's service record.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed with modifications. The State Government was directed to resolve the appellant's representations, and the Selection Committee was instructed to reconsider the appellant's inclusion in the Select List, recording reasons for any proposed supersession. The Union Public Service Commission was to be consulted thereafter. The Court emphasized that the appellant's writ petition and appeal were not infructuous despite the approval of the Select List by the Union Public Service Commission.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
