Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Conclusion

    Uploaded by

    Harsha Ammineni
    13 views1 page
    The court held that all officers were eligible for promotion according to the 1994 Rules of the Department of Transport. These officers had received ad hoc promotions based on the same Rules. In 2009, the enabling provision was removed from the new Rules issued by the respondent, which would create an anomalous situation if only degree holders were limited to promotions that arose between 2000 to 2010. It would also create an inequitable situation since similar officers previously benefited from promotions under the note when they were under government control, especially for those who received ad hoc promotions until 2009 when the new Rules were notified and now faced losing their seniority for regular promotions. The application was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    25.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court held that all officers were eligible for promotion according to the 1994 Rules of the Department of Transport. These officers had received ad hoc promotions based on the same Rules. In 2009, the enabling provision was removed from the new Rules issued by the respondent, which would create an anomalous situation if only degree holders were limited to promotions that arose between 2000 to 2010. It would also create an inequitable situation since similar officers previously benefited from promotions under the note when they were under government control, especially for those who received ad hoc promotions until 2009 when the new Rules were notified and now faced losing their seniority for regular promotions. The application was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views1 page

    Conclusion

    Uploaded by

    Harsha Ammineni
    The court held that all officers were eligible for promotion according to the 1994 Rules of the Department of Transport. These officers had received ad hoc promotions based on the same Rules. In 2009, the enabling provision was removed from the new Rules issued by the respondent, which would create an anomalous situation if only degree holders were limited to promotions that arose between 2000 to 2010. It would also create an inequitable situation since similar officers previously benefited from promotions under the note when they were under government control, especially for those who received ad hoc promotions until 2009 when the new Rules were notified and now faced losing their seniority for regular promotions. The application was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    CONCLUSION:

    The court Held, all these officers were eligible as per provisions of RRs 1994of DOT, they
    were also getting ad hoc promotion on basis of same Rules - It was only in 2009 that this
    enabling provision, somehow or other, did not find place in the RRs notified by respondent .It
    would create an anomalous situation if we accepted contention of applicants and limit
    promotion to vacancies arising between 2000 to 2010 only to Degree Holders, not only that it
    would create an invidious situation in view of fact that similar officers earlier had benefit of
    aforesaid Note for regular promotion during time employees were under control of
    Government, particularly for those who had ad hoc promotion all these years till 14.07.2009
    when RRs of respondent were notified and now would be facing prospect of losing their
    seniority when their regular promotion is to be considered .Application dismissed.

    You might also like