Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.13 seconds)Section 3 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be
communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair,
average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of
such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways: (1) had the
entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of
his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to
improve his work in future; (2) he would have an opportunity of making a
representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its
upgradation. Hence, non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it
has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka
Page 35
Gandhi v. Union of India that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Badrinath vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 29 September, 2000
"15. The 'guidelines' give a certain amount of play in the joints to DPC
by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in
CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in CRs.
DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each
candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and
Page 43
norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either
on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness, that the
selection calls for interference. Where 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 DPC, the court will not interfere (vide SBI v. Mohd.
Mynuddin, UPSC v. Hiranyalal Dev and Badrinath v. Govt. of T.N.).
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 DPC
dated 13-6-1990. In the absence of any allegation of mala fide or bias
against 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 the respondent, as was
done in the case of R.S. Virk."
Union Of India vs A.L. Rallia Ram on 19 April, 1963
In Kapoor case, this Court has stated with regard to the principle thus:
Sarat Kumar Dash & Ors vs Biswajit Patnaik & Ors on 27 October, 1994
The argument put forward by the counsel for the appellant
Page 50
was accepted by the Supreme Court, in Sarat Kumar Dash (supra), that
even in case of merit cum suitability with due regard to seniority, seniority has
no role to play, if the junior is more meritorious.