Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991
The appellant submitted an application for promotion pursuant to a notice issued by the respondent bank calling for applications in the prescribed format. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on 11-5-1989 for considering the case of the appellant for promotion. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was kept in a 'sealed cover' while publishing the list of other candidates who were selected. Actually, the charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on 23-7-1990. Now the question is whether keeping the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in a "sealed cover" on 11-5-1989 when the said Committee met for considering the case of the appellant for promotion, is valid or not? Resort to sealed cover procedure was considered by the Surpeme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiramari, . A batch of cases was disposed of by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the above cases arising out of the decision of a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as other decisions by the Central Administrative Tribunal following the judgment of the Full Bench. The learned Judges held, on a consideration of the relevant cases as follows in para 6 of their Judgment at page 2015:
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh And Another on 5 April, 1990
11. The other submission made by Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the promotion policy including the disability clause is binding on the appellant in view of the fact that the same was issued by the bank in consultation with the Officers' Association is also not sustainable. When once it is held that it runs counter to the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court and is also arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, the question of disability clause being binding on the appellant does not arise. It is well settled that there can be no estoppel against Constitution. It is further contended by the counsel appearing for the respondents that in the writ petition the constitutional validity of the disability clause in the promotion policy was never questioned and therefore, this Court should not countenance the said point. However, in this writ appeal specific grounds have been raised by the appellant regarding invalidity of the disability clause and since it does not depend upon any question of fact and it is a pure question of law, we are of the opinion that it can be gone into.
1