Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Deepak Verma, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan
Date of Judgment: 9 June 2010
Facts of the Case: The appellant herein Smt. Shakuntala had been promoted to the post of Inspector with effect from 18.3.2008. However, learned counsel for the appellant contended before the Court that even though the appellant had been promoted with effect from 18.3.2008, but in fact she was already promoted on 21.5.2004 and subsequently she was reverted to the post of Sub Inspector on some non-existent grounds. The State Government had issued a show cause notice to the appellant and it was replied to by the appellant but the objections which were raised by her were not considered by the State in proper perspective and were rejected in a slipshod manner. Since substantial relief had already been granted to the appellant during the pendency of the present appeal, the Court did not deem it fit and proper to decide this appeal on merits. But the Court was of the opinion that the interest of the appellant had to be safeguarded, that is to say, as to from what date she should be entitled for promotion on the post of Inspector.
Issue: Whether State action was right or not?
Judgment: Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the appellant was already promoted to the post of Inspector with effect from 21.5.2004, there was no occasion for the respondent-State to have her reverted and then subsequently consider her for promotion and finally promote her to the post of Inspector with effect from 18.3.2008. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that for the reasons recorded in the various orders, the aforesaid step was taken by the State.
At this stage, the Court kept it open to be decided afresh by the respondents. In this view of the matter, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to file fresh representation before the respondent State bringing all facts to its notice, within a period of 15 days hereof. The Court observed that on such representation being received by the respondent State, the same should be considered afresh on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of its receipt, under intimation to the appellant. The Court clarified that any order passed prior would not come in the way of the appellant for considering her case on merits and the respondent authorities would not be impressed by any observation made by the High Court against the appellant. It further clarified that in case it was found that some other persons are likely to be affected by the order granting promotion to the appellant from an earlier date, then they would also be heard by the respondent State.
Decision: Appeal stood disposed of. Parties were to bear their respective costs.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi