Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.23 seconds)
Ashok Jailkhani vs Union Of India Through on 20 February, 2009 cites

R.S. Garg vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 27 July, 2006

In R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. & others, (2006) 6 SCC 430 while laying down the norms for exercise of discretion by the administrative authorities, it is held that the action has to be adjudged on the basis of norms set up by the statutory rules and on the basis of reasons assigned but could not be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. While further holding a judicial view on promotion, following observations have been made:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 108 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Ors vs Mohd. Mynuddin on 17 July, 1987

15. The guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to the DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in the CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. The DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness, the selection calls for interference. Where the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of assessment by the DPC, the court will not interfere (vide State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin [1987 (4) SCC 486], Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev [1988 (2) SCC 242] and Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu [2000 (8) SCC 395]). The review DPC reconsidered the matter and has given detailed reasons as to why the case of the respondent was not similar to that of R S Virk. If in those circumstances, the Review DPC decided not to change the grading of the respondent for the period 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988 from 'good' to 'very good', the overall grading of the respondent continued to remain as 'good'. There was no question of moving him from the block of officers with the overall rating of 'good' to the block of officers with the overall rating of 'very good' and promoting him with reference to the DPC dated 13.6.1990. In the absence of any allegation of mala fide or bias against the DPC and in the absence of any arbitrariness in the manner in which assessment has been made, the High Court was not justified in directing that the benefit of upgrading be given to respondent, as was done in the case of R. S. Virk.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 72 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next