3/16/2023 0 Comments Lost judgment chairman nameUnion of India), has held as follows: ''8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case, reported in 1994 SCC, Supl.(2) 195 [ Ex-Capt. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner has approached this court after the lapse of 7 years.ĥ. The petitioner has made representation to the authorities concerned to include her name in the panel of the year 2012-13 or 2013-14 for the reason that her juniors were already promoted to the higher post. The writ petitioner has not challenged the seniority list prepared for the year 2012-14 or challenged the promotion orders issued to his juniors. Pursuant to the reduction of punishment, the petitioner's name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2014-15. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's name was not included in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer for the year 2012-13 on the ground that the petitioner was awarded a punishment of Stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and the said punishment was subsequently, modified by the Appellate Authority in the year 2013, by reducing the punishment of Stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record.Ĥ. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.ģ. Now, after the lapse of 8 years, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for inclusion of his name in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer for the year 2012-13 on par with his juniors. However, the petitioner agitated that his juniors were already promoted as Executive Engineer. The petitioner accepted the said promotion and has not challenged the seniority list fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer drawn for the year 2015-16. Subsequently, the petitioner's name was included in the panel fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2015-16. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents strongly objected by stating that the petitioner's name was not included in the panel prepared for the year 2012-13 for the reason that punishment of Stoppage of increment for the period of 2 years without cumulative effect awarded against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.Ģ. The petitioner has made representation to the authorities, however, the respondent has not consider his name for inclusion in the seniority list for the year 2012-13 and no order was passed on the said representation. According to the petitioner, his juniors were already promoted as Executive Engineer, whereas the petitioner's name was not considered due to the punishment imposed by the respondent. The Appellate Authority passed the order in the year 2013. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority modified the punishment of Stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner's name was not considered for inclusion in the promotion panel for the reason that the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect. The court advised the party to use the 30-day window available to them to appeal its ruling if they feel dissatisfied.The writ petitioner while working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the respondent Board, respondent has drawn a seniority list fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The plea for fresh elections is hereby refused.” “The first defendant (APC) cannot field a candidate for the 2023 general elections the primary election is invalid, and the court therefore sees the return of Aishatu Ahmed Binani as unlawful. “My findings are that there’s non-compliance to the Electoral Act, as well as party guidelines and the constitution because there was manifest overvoting, which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In his ruling, Justice Anka agreed with the plaintiff that the result of the primary was illegal but refused the plea for a fresh primary, holding that the APC, by the court judgment, had no candidate for the 2023 governorship election.Īnka held that the primary did not comply with the 2022 Electoral Act, contravening Section 85 of the Act because there was “manifest overvoting,” the constitution, and the APC guidelines.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |