Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1148 - SC - Indian LawsPromotion of Constables and Head Constables to the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the State of Uttar Pradesh - validity of selection and promotion process at various stages - Held that: - it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted. The process of sealed cover procedure was devised to prevent any prejudice being caused to the persons against whom the disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending. In the present case, it is nobody's case that such persons are prejudiced. Therefore, this contention does not hold any merit in the present case. Awarding of consolidated marks by all the panelists in the interview - Held that: - if only consolidated marks are awarded at the interview, it becomes questionable, though not conclusive, whether each panelist applied his/her own mind independently - the Government Order dated 3.02.1999 was in continuation of the Government Order dated 23.01.1999, which was superseded expressly by Government Order dated 27.02.1999. The Government Order dated 27.02.1999 did not provide any condition that the marks were to be separately awarded by each interview panelist - it cannot be argued that the Government did not follow the rules framed by itself. It is a settled law that in cases like the present one, where an Executive action of the State is challenged, Court must tread with caution and not overstep its limits. The interference by Court is warranted only when there are oblique motives or there is miscarriage of justice - In the present case, there is no oblique motive or any miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court - petition dismissed.
|