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>Supreme Court Decision on Delayed Promotion Allegations in Indian Administrative Service</h1> <h3>Chabungbam Ibohal Singh Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court reviewed a case concerning delayed promotion in the Indian Administrative Service, alleging a violation of the fundamental right under ... - Issues:- Alleged infringement of fundamental right under Article 16 by delayed promotion in Indian Administrative Service.- Consideration of appellant's case by Selection Committee in various years.- Reasons for non-recommendation of appellant by Selection Committee.- Supersession of appellant by juniors in promotion recommendations.- Examination of service records and proceedings of Selection Committee.- Justification of promotion based on 1981 recommendation.Analysis:The appellant contended that his fundamental right under Article 16 was violated due to delayed promotion in the Indian Administrative Service compared to his juniors. The case originated from a writ petition transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, where the State Government raised a preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the application, leading to its dismissal. The Supreme Court decided to review the case's merits instead of dismissing it solely on the grounds of delay, emphasizing the importance of examining the service records and Selection Committee proceedings.The records revealed that the appellant's name was considered by the Selection Committee in multiple years, with reasons for non-recommendation cited each time. In 1974, the appellant was not recommended due to pending disciplinary proceedings related to integrity issues, which were later dropped. The Selection Committee also noted adverse remarks in the appellant's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) regarding his work speed and past censure. Despite the dropping of the disciplinary proceeding, the non-recommendation in 1974 was deemed justified based on valid reasons.In subsequent years, the appellant was not recommended for promotion due to fair performance, lack of experience, and the need for better results. The Selection Committee's decisions were based on comparative assessments with other candidates, including juniors who were rated higher. While the appellant was superseded by juniors in some instances, the Court found no injustice as the juniors' assessments were superior, and no unfairness or arbitrariness was observed in the Selection Committee's proceedings.The final consideration in 1980 resulted in the recommendation of four candidates based on their assessments as 'very good.' The appellant, rated as 'good,' was not recommended due to the limit on the number of recommendations. The Court concluded that no illegality or injustice occurred in the Selection Committee's decisions, leading to the appellant's promotion in 1981. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the promotion based on the 1981 recommendation without any violation of Article 16.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
