Promotion

Supreme Court Upholds Inspector General’s Authority in Police Promotions: Sushil Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2022)

/ Judges, K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Promotion, Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Punjab Police Rules, 1934 with Rule 12.10, Punjab Police Rules, 1934 with Rule 13.7, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Inspector General’s Authority in Police Promotions: Sushil Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2022 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Can an Inspector General (IG) of Police modify the recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding promotions […]

Supreme Court Upholds Inspector General’s Authority in Police Promotions: Sushil Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2022) Read Post »

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation upon refusal of promotion in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022)

/ Assured Career Progression Scheme, Financial Upgradation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, O.M. dated 18.7.2001, O.M. dated 9.8.1999, Office Memorandum, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Assured Career Progression Scheme: Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who refuses a promotion is entitled to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr. Judgment Date: 03 January 2022

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation upon refusal of promotion in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) Read Post »

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation in service matters (2022)

/ Assured Career Progression Scheme, Financial Upgradation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies Assured Career Progression Scheme for Central Government Employees LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees who refuse promotions are eligible for financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr. Judgment Date: 3 January 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation in service matters (2022) Read Post »

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for employees refusing promotions in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022)

/ Approbate and Reprobate, Assured Career Progression Scheme, Doctrine, Financial Upgradation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Office Memorandum, Office Memorandum with 18.7.2001, Office Memorandum with 9.8.1999, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies Assured Career Progression Scheme: Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees who refuse promotions are eligible for financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr. Judgment Date: 3 January 2022 Introduction

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for employees refusing promotions in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Remands Seniority Dispute in Jammu & Kashmir Judiciary: Vinod Kumar Bhagat vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Promotion, Seniority, Service Law, Service Law with Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Remands Seniority Dispute in Jammu & Kashmir Judiciary LEGAL ISSUE: Whether seniority for promotions can be determined based on roster points for reserved categories. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Vinod Kumar Bhagat and Ors vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. [Judgment Date]: November 17, 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Remands Seniority Dispute in Jammu & Kashmir Judiciary: Vinod Kumar Bhagat vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Accounts Officers, favoring direct recruits: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021)

/ Amendment Notification dated 02.01.2010, Direct Recruitment, Equality in Service, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Regulations, Judges, M.R. Shah, Promotion, Regulation dated 01.11.2006, Sanjiv Khanna, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Accounts Officers, favoring direct recruits: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the requirement of passing the SAS Part II examination for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer (AO) is valid for direct recruit Assistant Accounts Officers (AAO). CASE TYPE: Service Law, Promotion Dispute

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria for Accounts Officers, favoring direct recruits: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Judges, Promotion, Service Law, Service Law with Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021) Date of the Judgment: October 7, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 688 Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka Can a government employee claim a promotion based solely on the fact that their juniors were promoted

Supreme Court Denies Promotion to Cashier Based on Junior’s Promotion: State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on IFS promotions: Union of India vs. Trilok S. Bhandari (29 September 2021)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Indian Forest Service, Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, Judges, Promotion, Service Law

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on IFS promotions: Union of India vs. Trilok S. Bhandari (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Union of India to adjust officers promoted to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) in 1996 against notional vacancies, despite a subsequent review process. CASE TYPE: Service Law,

Supreme Court overturns High Court order on IFS promotions: Union of India vs. Trilok S. Bhandari (29 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds differential promotion criteria based on educational qualifications: Chandan Banerjee vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh (21 September 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Educational Qualification, Fundamental Rights, Hima Kohli, Judges, Promotion, Service Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Differential Promotion Criteria Based on Educational Qualifications: Chandan Banerjee vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a classification based on educational qualifications for promotion to supernumerary posts within the same cadre is valid under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Chandan Banerjee

Supreme Court upholds differential promotion criteria based on educational qualifications: Chandan Banerjee vs. Krishna Prosad Ghosh (21 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria based on seniority-cum-merit: Tek Chand & Ors. vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors. (2021)

/ Composite Class Interpretation, Judges, Literal Interpretation, Navin Sinha, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Seniority-cum-Merit, Service Law, Statutory Interpretation

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria: Tek Chand vs. BBMB (2021) Date of the Judgment: July 29, 2021 Citation: Tek Chand & Ors. vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4482 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28392 of 2018) Judges: Navin Sinha, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. Can a senior employee

Supreme Court clarifies promotion criteria based on seniority-cum-merit: Tek Chand & Ors. vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Sub-Inspector Promotions: Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 July 2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Promotion, Recruitment Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Sub-Inspector Promotions: Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether candidates must obtain minimum qualifying marks in each subject of a promotional exam to be eligible for further evaluation. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Arvind Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State of

Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Sub-Inspector Promotions: Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Police Promotion Rules: Eight Years’ Experience Required for Inspector Post

/ Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Promotion, Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Punjab Police Rules, 1934 with Rule 13.14, Punjab Police Rules, 1934 with Rule 13.15, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Police Promotion Rules: Eight Years’ Experience Required for Inspector Post LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of promotion rules for Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors in Haryana Police. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Suresh Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. Judgment Date: 26 March 2021 Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2021 Citation:

Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Police Promotion Rules: Eight Years’ Experience Required for Inspector Post Read Post »

Scroll to Top