D.M. BHARATI versus L.M. SUD AND ORS.

D.M. BHARATI versus L.M. SUD AND ORS.

The Court held that appellant’s promotion and appointments in the deputed Town Planning Establishment did not confer any rights in respect of higher posts in the parent department (Municipal Corporation) upon reversion. Reversion to the parent department entitled him only to his original post (Tracer), subject to any intervening entitlement to promotion in accordance with regulations. The appointments of respondents 6 to 11 as Junior Draftsmen in the parent department could not be challenged by the appellant after an inordinate delay, especially as selection was made through the proper process. No illegality or irregularity in appointments was established. Thus, the order reverting...

Parties
Appellant: D.M. Bharati; Respondents: L.M. Sud and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 September 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Dismissing Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deputation, Promotion on Deputation, Seniority, Reversion to Parent Department, Municipal Service
Service Law Deputation Promotion on Deputation Seniority Reversion to Parent Department Municipal Service

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.M. Bharati

Appellant

L.M. Sud and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Dismissing Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether promotion obtained in a deputed establishment confers rights to higher posts in parent department on reversion
  2. 2 Whether appellant could be reverted to a lower post in parent department after abolition of deputed establishment
  3. 3 Whether appointments/promotions of respondents were irregular or could be challenged after delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that appellant’s promotion and appointments in the deputed Town Planning Establishment did not confer any rights in respect of higher posts in the parent department (Municipal Corporation) upon reversion. Reversion to the parent department entitled him only to his original post (Tracer), subject to any intervening entitlement to promotion in accordance with regulations. The appointments of respondents 6 to 11 as Junior Draftsmen in the parent department could not be challenged by the appellant after an inordinate delay, especially as selection was made through the proper process. No illegality or irregularity in appointments was established. Thus, the order reverting...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No grounds to interfere with the order of the High Court.
  • No order as to costs.