GIRISH KUMAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

GIRISH KUMAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Eligibility for promotion to Section Officer under Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules, 1967 requires completion of actual continuous service for not less than three years in the feeder cadre; a deemed date of promotion granted under Seniority Rules, 1982 cannot substitute for actual period of service for recruitment eligibility. Since respondent no.3 did not complete three years of actual service, he was not eligible for promotion.

Parties
Appellant: Girish Kumar; Respondents: State of Maharashtra and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion Eligibility, Seniority, Interpretation of Recruitment Rules, Distinction Between Seniority and Recruitment Rules
Service Law Administrative Law Promotion Eligibility Seniority Interpretation of Recruitment Rules Distinction Between Seniority and Recruitment Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Girish Kumar

Appellant

State of Maharashtra and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an employee assigned a deemed date of promotion under Seniority Rules,1982, without actually working in the post, is eligible for promotion under Recruitment Rules,1967 requiring three years continuous service
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'continuous service' for eligibility in promotions

Ratio Decidendi

Eligibility for promotion to Section Officer under Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules, 1967 requires completion of actual continuous service for not less than three years in the feeder cadre; a deemed date of promotion granted under Seniority Rules, 1982 cannot substitute for actual period of service for recruitment eligibility. Since respondent no.3 did not complete three years of actual service, he was not eligible for promotion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgments and orders of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court are quashed and set aside.
  • Order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 20.05.2010 is restored.