Skip to content


Lakhi Ram Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 84 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC1655; [1981(43)FLR296]; (1981)2SCC674; 1981(2)SLJ408(SC)
AppellantLakhi Ram
RespondentState of Haryana and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 6. the high court took the view that the appellant was not entitled to complain against the expungement of adverse remarks made in the confidential report of another officer. 6. the appellant was, therefore, clearly entitled to show that the government acted beyond the scope of its power in expunging the adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent no......the appellant filed the writ petition challenging the action of the government expunging the adverse remarks made in the annual confidential report of respondent no. 6. the high court took the view that the appellant was not entitled to complain against the expungement of adverse remarks made in the confidential report of another officer. but this view is, in our opinion, erroneous because the effect of expungement of adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent no. 6 is to prejudice the chances of promotion of the appellant and if the appellant is able to show that the expungement of the remakes was illegal and invalid, the adverse remarks would continue to remain in the confidential report of respondent no. 6 and that would improve the chances of promotion of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. The only ground on which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court is that the appellant has no locus stand to maintain the writ petition. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the action of the Government expunging the adverse remarks made in the annual confidential report of respondent No. 6. The High Court took the view that the appellant was not entitled to complain against the expungement of adverse remarks made in the confidential report of another officer. But this view is, in our opinion, erroneous because the effect of expungement of adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 is to prejudice the chances of promotion of the appellant and if the appellant is able to show that the expungement of the remakes was illegal and invalid, the adverse remarks would continue to remain in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that would improve the chances of promotion of the appellant vis-a-vis respondent No. 6. The appellant was, therefore, clearly entitled to show that the Government acted beyond the scope of its power in expunging the adverse remarks in the confidential report of respondent No. 6 and that the expungement of the adverse remarks should be can celled. The appellant had, in the circumstances, locus stand to maintain the writ petition and the High Court was in error in rejecting it on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the writ petition.

2. This was the reason why we allowed the appeal and, setting aside the Order of dismissal passed by the High Court, remanded the writ petition to the High Court for disposal on merits.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //