https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280515 Promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was examined by comparing the appellant's assessments in different selection years, and no unlawful supersession was found. For 1974 and 1976, non-recommendation was supported by adverse service material, including censure, slow output, and other adverse remarks. For 1977, the recommended juniors had better assessments and the record disclosed no arbitrariness or unfairness. For 1980, the selected candidates had superior assessments or higher placement in the eligible list, and the appellant could not be included because only four names could be recommended. No enforceable grievance of illegal supersession or violation of Article 16 was made out. en-us Fri, 24 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2019 12:57:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280515 Promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was examined by comparing the appellant's assessments in different selection years, and no unlawful supersession was found. For 1974 and 1976, non-recommendation was supported by adverse service material, including censure, slow output, and other adverse remarks. For 1977, the recommended juniors had better assessments and the record disclosed no arbitrariness or unfairness. For 1980, the selected candidates had superior assessments or higher placement in the eligible list, and the appellant could not be included because only four names could be recommended. No enforceable grievance of illegal supersession or violation of Article 16 was made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280515