S.P. INDU versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, METRO RAILWAY AND ANR.

S.P. INDU versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, METRO RAILWAY AND ANR.

Appellant never held the post of Chief Law Assistant on substantive basis in the open line and had not passed the departmental examination; was on deputation and did not fulfil eligibility requirements for promotion to Assistant Law Officer. Respondent, having passed the departmental examination and holding substantive post in parent railway, was eligible and correctly promoted. Appellant and respondent were not comparable, and Tribunal erred in allowing appellant's application.

Parties
Appellant: S.P. Indu; Respondent: The General Manager, Metro Rail Way; Respondent: P.K. Gangopadhyay
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Division Bench of Calcutta High Court Reversing Order of CAT
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Promotion, Seniority, Railway Service, Deputation, Substantive Appointment
Service Law Promotion Seniority Railway Service Deputation Substantive Appointment

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.P. Indu

Appellant

The General Manager, Metro Rail Way

Respondent

P.K. Gangopadhyay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Division Bench of Calcutta High Court Reversing Order of CAT

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Eligibility and seniority for promotion to post of Assistant Law Officer in Metro Railway

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant never held the post of Chief Law Assistant on substantive basis in the open line and had not passed the departmental examination; was on deputation and did not fulfil eligibility requirements for promotion to Assistant Law Officer. Respondent, having passed the departmental examination and holding substantive post in parent railway, was eligible and correctly promoted. Appellant and respondent were not comparable, and Tribunal erred in allowing appellant's application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed