MOHAN SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

MOHAN SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

The appellant's promotion was justified as the vacancy was the 6th, reserved as per the roster, and Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class-III) Rules, 1963—though not technically notified—permitted such promotion and had been consistently followed as a matter of practice; no valid differential existed for the Advocate-General's Office to be excluded from this application.

Parties
Appellant: Mohan Singh; Respondents: State of Punjab and Ors.; Respondent: Tarlok Singh; Respondent: Deena Nath Singla
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 April 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision After Division Bench Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion in Government Service, Reservation in Promotions, Interpretation and Applicability of Service Rules
Service Law Promotion in Government Service Reservation in Promotions Interpretation and Applicability of Service 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohan Singh

Appellant

State of Punjab and Ors.

Respondents

Tarlok Singh

Respondent

Deena Nath Singla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision After Division Bench Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's promotion to Superintendent Grade-I was against a reserved vacancy as per the roster
  2. 2 Whether promotion could be granted directly from Assistant to Superintendent Grade-I, bypassing Superintendent Grade-II when available

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's promotion was justified as the vacancy was the 6th, reserved as per the roster, and Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Secretariat (State Service Class-III) Rules, 1963—though not technically notified—permitted such promotion and had been consistently followed as a matter of practice; no valid differential existed for the Advocate-General's Office to be excluded from this application.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the Division Bench and the Single Judge set aside
  • Writ Petition filed by respondents dismissed