AJIT KR. BHUYAN AND OTHERS versus DEBAJIT DAS AND OTHERS

AJIT KR. BHUYAN AND OTHERS versus DEBAJIT DAS AND OTHERS

The promotion and encadrement of respondent No.1 were illegal and vitiated by fraud: an ex-cadre post was created specifically for him, the number of vacancies was falsely inflated to accommodate him (thirteen shown instead of ten), and he was ineligible under the service rules having served less than the required five years; therefore the Division Bench's setting aside of the Single Judge on grounds of delay and laches was incorrect and the Single Judge's judgment restoring illegality should be restored.

Parties
Appellant: Ajit Kr. Bhuyan and Others; Respondent: Debajit Das and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court (appeals Allowed)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside and judgment of the Single Judge restored.
Legal Topics
Promotion, Encadrement, Laches, Fraud, Administrative Action
Service Law Promotion Encadrement Laches Fraud Administrative Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajit Kr. Bhuyan and Others

Appellant

Debajit Das and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court (appeals Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether promotion of respondent No.1 to ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer and subsequent encadrement was illegal
  2. 2 Whether delay and laches bar the challengers from seeking relief against the promotion
  3. 3 Whether the Government was entitled to conduct inquiry during pendency and demote respondent No.1 to ex-cadre post

Ratio Decidendi

The promotion and encadrement of respondent No.1 were illegal and vitiated by fraud: an ex-cadre post was created specifically for him, the number of vacancies was falsely inflated to accommodate him (thirteen shown instead of ten), and he was ineligible under the service rules having served less than the required five years; therefore the Division Bench's setting aside of the Single Judge on grounds of delay and laches was incorrect and the Single Judge's judgment restoring illegality should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside and judgment of the Single Judge restored.

Orders

  • Allow appeals
  • Set aside impugned judgment dated August 07, 2015 of the Gauhati High Court in W.A. No. 138 of 2015