High CourtsSingle Bench(1958) 10 MAD CK 0008

L. Balakrishnan vs The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Madurai and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 October 1958 · Citation: AIR 1959 Mad 270 : (1959) ILR (Mad) 639 : (1959) 2 LLJ 514 : (1959) 72 LW 255 : (1959) 1 MLJ 220

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajagopalan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1956

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 219 words

Rajagopalan, J.—All that the petitioner could claim was that at one time he was considered fit for promotion, and that subsequently he was

told he was not fit for promotion. Names of persons considered fit for promotion are included in what is known to the department as the C list.

That by itself confers no enforceable rights on the persons whose names have been so included. Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

Neither the removal of a name from the list of persons tentatively considered fit for promotion, nor even denial of promotion can be equated to any

of the punishments for which the Civil Service (Classification and Control) Rules provide. As I said, promotion is not a question of right. Even if the

preparation of the list was governed by any statutory rules, neither the amendment of the list nor deletion of names therefrom will make that a

justiciable issue, because both continuance in office and preferment in due course or otherwise are still within the pleasure of the executive.

2.

The removal of the petitioner''s name which is admitted in the counter affidavit will not make it a justiciable issue. It is on that ground that I must

direct the discharge of the rule nisi. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.