GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA versus C. DINAKAR AND ORS.

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA versus C. DINAKAR AND ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the promotion and appointment of the fourth respondent as DG & IGP could not be sustained as it was made in a casual and non-objective manner, without fair consideration of all eligible candidates and relevant records, and constituted a violation of Service Rules and principles of fairness. However, since the fourth respondent had already been promoted, he acquired a right to be considered along with other eligible candidates for future selection.

Parties
Appellant: Government of Karnataka; Respondent: C. Dinakar; Respondent No. 4 (beneficiary of Promotion): T. Srinivasulu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Decision on W.p. No. 4264/98
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Promotion, Retrospective Promotion, Seniority, Selection Procedure
Service Law Promotion Retrospective Promotion Seniority Selection Procedure

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Government of Karnataka

Appellant

C. Dinakar

Respondent

T. Srinivasulu

Respondent No. 4 (beneficiary of Promotion)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Decision on W.p. No. 4264/98

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the promotion and appointment of the fourth respondent as Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP) was valid.
  2. 2 Whether the State Government could promote the fourth respondent with retrospective effect after reconsideration in accordance with prevailing guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the promotion and appointment of the fourth respondent as DG & IGP could not be sustained as it was made in a casual and non-objective manner, without fair consideration of all eligible candidates and relevant records, and constituted a violation of Service Rules and principles of fairness. However, since the fourth respondent had already been promoted, he acquired a right to be considered along with other eligible candidates for future selection.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • High Court judgment affirmed; promotion of the fourth respondent set aside, but he is to be considered along with other eligible candidates if selection is redone.
  • State Government may fill up the vacancy within two months according to prevailing guidelines, and until then, the fourth respondent will continue in the DG & IGP post.