WING COMMANDER J. KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

WING COMMANDER J. KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The promulgation of Rule 16 governing seniority in the DRDO is valid, not arbitrary, and does not violate constitutional equality or service rights; it operates prospectively and is not subject to principles of natural justice.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Wing Commander J. Kumar; Respondent: Union of India and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 March 1982
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of the Delhi High Court, Letters Patent Appeal No. 53 of 1980
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Service Conditions, Natural Justice, Promulgation of Statutory Rules
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Seniority Service Conditions Natural Justice Promulgation of Statutory Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wing Commander J. Kumar

Appellant

Union of India and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order of the Delhi High Court, Letters Patent Appeal No. 53 of 1980

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 16 governing seniority in the Defence Research and Development Organisation is arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether the rule can affect the appellant’s rights who was seconded to the organisation before its promulgation
  3. 3 Whether principles of natural justice apply to rule-making for seniority

Ratio Decidendi

The promulgation of Rule 16 governing seniority in the DRDO is valid, not arbitrary, and does not violate constitutional equality or service rights; it operates prospectively and is not subject to principles of natural justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Parties to bear their respective costs
  • Applications for contempt and under Section 340(1) CrPC dismissed