R.S. GARG versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

R.S. GARG versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Promotion of 3rd respondent was illegal as he was not substantively appointed nor had required period of service; relaxation of eligibility was not permissible under law; conversion of post and promotion were motivated by private interest, not public interest; reservation percentage in statute prevails over roster; entire action suffered from malice in law, violating principles of natural justice.

Parties
Appellant: R.S. Garg; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: 3rd Respondent (Sri Bharti)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Regularisation of Ad Hoc Employees, Promotion Eligibility, Reservation and Roster Conflict, Malice in Law, Natural Justice
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Regularisation of Ad Hoc Employees Promotion Eligibility Reservation and Roster Conflict Malice in Law Natural Justice

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.S. Garg

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

3rd Respondent (Sri Bharti)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ad hoc appointment in violation of service rules can be regularized
  2. 2 Whether experience gained in ad hoc capacity fulfills eligibility for promotion
  3. 3 Whether relaxation of qualifying service for reserved category promotion violates statutory requirements

Ratio Decidendi

Promotion of 3rd respondent was illegal as he was not substantively appointed nor had required period of service; relaxation of eligibility was not permissible under law; conversion of post and promotion were motivated by private interest, not public interest; reservation percentage in statute prevails over roster; entire action suffered from malice in law, violating principles of natural justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment set aside.
  • Respondents (State and 3rd respondent) to bear costs of appellant throughout.