AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 195 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of impugned orders dated 28.04.2000 and 16.05.2000.
Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that petitioners were granted ADHOC promotion which was fortuitous. The said promotion was withdrawn. The respondent made a statement before Hon’ble Supreme Court in connected matters to the effect that petitioners would be granted one time relaxation. The petitioners were not granted relaxation.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioners were granted ADHOC promotion which was out of turn and beyond the prescribed quota. There was no statement before Supreme Court with respect to petitioners. The rules were never amended as claimed by petitioners. This Court cannot ask State to promote petitioners or confirm their ADHOC promotion in the absence of any particular Rule or substantive right of the petitioners.
In the wake of aforesaid discussion and findings, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly DISMISSED.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.