Balraj Singh v. Punjab & Haryana High Court And ORS.
!
" #
$ % !
"
& '()*( +#,- (., #- /0 () ( #- ()1,#1-2#3
#
% +
- 56 7 8 9 6/-
:
&;0 % %
%
%
!
"#$ %
&
$'# () *
$$
$
$ $
$ &
$
$ (
+
$$ & $ $
& ,$ $ (
&
& $ & - " * '( .
/& $ $ & +
( $
$ $ &&$ 0 , %9
# 7 + , $# % < #
-
# 2 "
, 7
! "" #$ #
%
- % ; # % 9 % %
; %
%
3 % 1 =, > #
! % 6 " 3 # " % &' ( ?
%
%
# :
# %
8
@ % #
#
# % 6 7
7 + - ; # #% #
% 3 % %
%
# 8 "#
% # %
#
; 9 % &' (
@ ?
% A
$
;
8 %
# 7 , /&
- 0 )
# @6 - #
@# % % 37 A 7
2 "# , 7 A
(!#: %
# # A % 8 % A -
#
#
- % +
%
# 7
B A #
# ;
% : - #
A
# % #
-
+
) *
+' ' ( (
( ( '
& , ( ' '
( ' - , '
' ( ( .
.
/ 7
%
#
#
#
; 8
seniority cum merit %
# # % % +
7 2
"/&5@0# :
%
, 7 '
! "" #$ # % # %
% % ' ;%
%
) :
'
7. It would thus be clear that when promotion is under consideration, the previous record forms basis and when the promotion is on merit and ability, the currency of punishment based on previous record stands on impediment. Unless the period of punishment gets expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration during the said period cannot be taken up. Otherwise, it would amount to retrospective promotion which is impressible under the Rules and it would be premium on misconduct. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of double jeopardy has no application and non consideration is neither violative of Article 21 nor Article 14 read with 16 of the Constitution.
% % %
C +
# %
9 % % #
% + %
& " (#
#
#
% % # 8 #
%
7 %
% D #
8 # +
# #
% , 7 #% A % 6 2 : # A ;
% 8
% , 7
% #
7 # legitimate expectationD
%
# %
2 "
% #
% :
@ 9
-
% E9
7 9 # %
# A # : # %
(#
- :
#% # 8 # + A
# +
# # %
' " # 7 A
; #9 # 7
# % & # # ( )
Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No