PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Because the adverse remarks in the ACR that formed the basis for non-approval had been expunged/substituted by the Inspecting Judge and that expunction/substitution had been communicated to the appellant, reliance by the selection committee and the full court on the original adverse remarks was improper; the decision not to approve promotion was therefore unsustainable and the matter must be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Parties
Appellant: Pratap Singh; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Annual Confidential Report (acr) Expunction, Selection Committee, Reconsideration, Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, Rule 22(1)
Judicial Service Administrative Law Service Law Promotion Annual Confidential Report (acr) Expunction Selection Committee Reconsideration Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 +1 more

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pratap Singh

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment Dismissing Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-approval of appellant for promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS under Rule 22(1) of the 1975 Rules was illegal
  2. 2 Whether the selection committee and full court could lawfully rely on adverse ACR remarks that had been expunged/substituted by the Inspecting Judge
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be reconsidered in light of the expunction/substitution communicated to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

Because the adverse remarks in the ACR that formed the basis for non-approval had been expunged/substituted by the Inspecting Judge and that expunction/substitution had been communicated to the appellant, reliance by the selection committee and the full court on the original adverse remarks was improper; the decision not to approve promotion was therefore unsustainable and the matter must be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Matter of appellant's promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS to be reconsidered by the High Court on its administrative side in accordance with law, preferably within one month from communication of this order