https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181973 The Supreme Court discussed promotional relief for a stagnating employee and noted that the promotional bye-law, properly construed, applied only to officers engaged in scientific work and not to administrative staff. Even so, it declined to interfere with the Tribunal's grant of relief because the employee had remained without promotion for about twenty years under a defective promotional policy, and the case did not disclose manifest injustice warranting correction under Article 136. The Court also stressed the limited scope of interference in service matters and the finality-oriented scheme of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, including the Tribunal's guided procedure and exclusion of ordinary court jurisdiction. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:00:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181973 The Supreme Court discussed promotional relief for a stagnating employee and noted that the promotional bye-law, properly construed, applied only to officers engaged in scientific work and not to administrative staff. Even so, it declined to interfere with the Tribunal's grant of relief because the employee had remained without promotion for about twenty years under a defective promotional policy, and the case did not disclose manifest injustice warranting correction under Article 136. The Court also stressed the limited scope of interference in service matters and the finality-oriented scheme of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, including the Tribunal's guided procedure and exclusion of ordinary court jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181973