Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-08-09 disposed

Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Bench: 2 — Sanjay Kishan Kaul

In Brief

Direct appointees (ad hoc 1987, regularised 2001) challenged a 2007 seniority list placing promotees above them, arguing promotees lacked mandatory UPPSC consultation as required by Article 320(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while Article 320(3) is not absolutely mandatory, complete withdrawal of PSC consultation is unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment to the 1985 Rules did not cover Assistant Engineer posts, so consultation was mandatory but was omitted—an irregularity, not illegality, curable through prospective action. The Court directed UPPSC consultation within two months. Notably, the appellants themselves had never been appointed through UPPSC, undermining their technical objection. The Court disposed of the appeals conditional on UPPSC concurrence and directed no further litigation."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Public Service Commission Service Law Seniority Promotion vs Direct Recruitment Administrative Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login