Non-grant of permanent commission to lady officer: SC reproaches Navy action
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
The Supreme Court on Tuesday disapproved of non-grant of permanent commission to a 2007 batch Short Service Commission officer despite its direction.Verbally observing that "enough is enough", a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant asked Naval authorities to shed their egos.The bench asked the authorities to consider the case of 2007 batch Judge Advocate Generals (JAG or legal) branch officer Seema Chaudhary within a week and grant her permanent commission.The bench told counsel appearing for the Centre and Naval authorities: "Enough is enough. Please mend your ways. We will give you one week to take her in for the permanent commission. Does the authority concerned think they can sit over the orders of the court? What kind of disciplined force are you?"The bench, after examining the minutes of the selection board and the annual confidential reports of the officer, asked why Chaudhary was not taken in the permanent commission when the authorities claimed she had attained all benchmarks.The bench verbally remarked: "The authority concerned has to shed its ego. How can you say that she is fit in all aspects but still we cannot take her in permanent commission? There is a clear-cut finding of this court that her case has to be considered on a standalone basis. Then why was she not considered till now?"The counsel for authorities argued that though she checked all parameters, her three annual confidential reports (ACR) contained adverse remarks which couldn't be overlooked for the grant of permanent commission.The bench asked the counsel to furnish the three ACRs and said the remarks made by initiating officers were eventually overruled by the reviewing officer and final authority even accorded her the full 7.6 marks.The counsel said that the Navy did not have a closed mind and "she can be taken" upon a court direction. The counsel, however, sought time to take instructions on the matter. The bench posted the matter for orders after the court's summer break and said the 2024 judgement of the SC, passed in her review plea, had attained finality.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
PM Modi extends Eid greetings
— narendramodi (@narendramodi) (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday greeted people on the occasion of Eid ul-Adha He said on X, "Best wishes on Eid ul-Adha. May this occasion inspire harmony and strengthen the fabric of peace in our society. Wishing everyone good health and prosperity."One of the main Islamic festivals, it commemorates the willingness of Abraham, considered a prophet by Abrahamic religions, to sacrifice his son to obey the command of God.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays trial against former Haryana IAS officer in Manesar land case
The Supreme Court has stayed trial proceedings against former Haryana IAS officer Rajeev Arora in the Manesar land deal, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The former IAS officer had petitioned the apex court after his revision petition challenging his summoning by a special CBI court was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana high court on May 15. A special CBI court had on December 1, 2020 ordered that the former IAS officer be summoned to face trial for committing offence under section 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the Manesar land matter. However, on a revision petition filed by Arora, the Punjab and Haryana high court on December 14, 2020 had stayed the operation and implementation of the order of the special CBI court. Rejecting the challenge to the special CBI court's December 1, 2020 order, the HC on May15 said it found no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned special CBI court in summoning the petitioners. An apex court bench headed by chief justice BR Gavai, however, on May 29 ordered that notice be issued to the respondents and 'proceedings qua the petitioner (Rajeev Arora) shall stand stayed till the next date of hearing.' During the trial court proceedings on Friday, Special CBI judge, Rajeev Goyal while referring to the apex court's order of May 29 ordered that proceedings against all the accused persons except Rajeev Arora shall commence. The special court in its June 6 order noted that it is, therefore, seen that all the accused except accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba, DR Dhingra and Rajeev Arora, have been ordered to be charge-sheeted qua the offences as detailed in the order December 1, 2020. The court said that now arguments need to be advanced on charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. Learned defence counsels seek time to prepare the arguments. Learned senior public prosecutor Harsh Mohan Singh submits that charge-sheet may kindly be framed against the accused persons who have already been ordered to be charge-sheeted vide order dated December 1,2020. 'I am not able to accept the submission made by the senior public prosecutor as it will not be appropriate to frame charge-sheet before considering the case concerning framing of charges in respect of accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra. In case, the court after hearing contentions of the said accused persons and senior public prosecutor for CBI, concludes that charges are required to be framed against said accused persons as well, then a consolidated charge-sheet qua all the accused persons shall be framed and in my opinion, it will be more appropriate if such a course is adopted, for framing charge-sheet in a piecemeal manner is not desirable. As such, to come up on July 10, 2025 for arguments on charge qua accused Dhare Singh, Kulwant Singh Lamba and DR Dhingra,'' ordered the special court.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
HC grants relief to candidates
New Delhi : The Delhi High Court on Friday granted relief to CLAT-PG candidates over alleged discrepancies in the answer key and directed the consortium of NLUs to declare results soon. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's decision came over the plea of students in relation to a couple of answers in the key. The court, however, rejected the objection with respect to the declared answer to a third question, and asked the consortium of national law universities (NLUs) to accordingly award marks to the candidates. The court passed the order while deciding three pleas seeking rectification of errors in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-PG 2025. The bench's verdict highlighted the issue of a high fee of Rs 1,000 charged by the consortium per question for raising the objection to the provisional answer key, observing there ought to be a 'fine balance' between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions. While comparing the fee charged for objected questions by other organisations, the fees sought by the consortium 'appeared to be excessive and disproportionate' but the consortium's concern that it was required to keep frivolous individuals and coaching institutes at bay also did not appear to be 'fanciful or imaginative', it added. The bench, however, expected the consortium to take heed of its observations and take appropriate steps to 'avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations'. 'It may be advisable for the consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram (retd) for his valuable opinion which may be adhered to by it,' the bench said. The court ruled on the correctness of the answers in the answer key after considering each question and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the consortium. CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in national law universities in the country. CLAT PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024. Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts alleging several questions in the exam were wrong. On February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions over the issue to the Delhi High Court for a 'consistent adjudication'. The top court passed the direction on the transfer petitions of the consortium.
