Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    Madan Lal v. Union Of India And Others

    5. It is unnecessary to multiply authorities because I have not the slightest hesitation in holding that while deciding the question of seniority of the petitioner which is likely to affect not only his future chances of promotion but also the holding of his present job from which he has been reverted as a result of the decision of the Central Government it was obligatory on the Government to either directly or through the Advisory Committee afford an opportunity to the petitioner in such manner as it was considered proper to make his representation or submit his explanations in respect of the representations of the four clerks which they had preferred against the assignment of their respective places in the joint seniority list. The petitioner admittedly was not afforded any such opportunity and it is not possible to understand how his omission to ask for a hearing would affect the matter inasmuch as there is nothing to show that he was even informed of the existence of any such representations against him. The orders which have been impugned in the matter of the fixation of his seniority in the joint seniority list would have to be quashed for the aforesaid reason. It will be for the Central Government or the Advisory Committee to rehear and redecide the matter if so advised, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the light of the observations made above. 6. It has been pointed out that in the return of respondents 3 and 4 it has been admitted in paragraph 9 that the order dated 18th March, 1966 reverting the petitioner to the post of a clerk was the result of the decision of the Central Government. If the decision of the Central Government is set aside then that order of reversion will also have to go. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed and the decision of the Central Government which has been impugned is hereby set aside as also the order dated 18th March, 1966 by which the petitioner was reverted. In view of the entire circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Madan Lal v. Union Of India And Others
    (Nov 11, 1966)