Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Saturday, 08 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-10-03 allowed

Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vs State of Punjab and Ors

Bench: 2 — Ashok Bhushan

In Brief

The Supreme Court resolved a seniority dispute among 35 officers of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service recruited in 2008 from three different streams: 50% by merit-cum-seniority promotion, 25% by limited competitive examination, and 25% by direct recruitment. The High Court had placed 15 promotees at the bottom of the seniority list, treating their promotions as "ad hoc" and beyond quota. The Court held that the promotions were within quota when calculated prospectively from the 2004 rule amendments, and that the roster system prescribed in the 2007 Rules applies to determine inter se seniority regardless of joining dates. Officers selected in the same recruitment year retain their seniority positions according to the roster, minimizing disputes as intended by Supreme Court precedent.

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

Service Law Judicial Service Seniority Recruitment Quota System Roster System Promotions Direct Recruitment Administrative Law Constitutional 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