Tag Archives: promotion

Surrogate Advertisements – Meaning of

“Surrogate” has been defined in Wharton’s Law Lexicon Dictionary, Seventeenth Edition, 2018 at page 1824:

        “One that is substituted or appointed in the room of another, as by a bishop, chancellor, Judge etc., especially an officer appointed t o dispense licences to marry without banns;

        A substitute: especially, a person appointed to act in place of another.”

        P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s The Law Lexicon, Fourth Edition 2017 at page 1862 defines the word ‘Surrogate’:

        “Is one that is substituted or appointed in the room of another; as by a Bishop, Chancellor, Judge etc.

        A person or thing acting in place of another.”

        ‘Surrogate’ has been defined in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Eighth Edition at page 2904:

        “Is he who is appointed in the stead of another, most commonly of a bishop or his chancellor.”

            The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Eighth Edition 1990 at page 1228 defines ‘surrogate’ as :

        “a substitute, especially, for a person in a specific role or office.”

        ‘Surrogate’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition at page 1485:

        “A substitute especially, a person appointed to act in the place of another.”

        The above definitions broadly show that “Surrogate” means a “Substitute”. Surrogate Advertisements are like Advertisements which duplicate the brand image of one product to promote another product of same brand. ‘Surrogate’ or ‘Substitute’ could either resemble the original product or could be a different product altogether but it is marketed under the established brand name of original product. Surrogate advertisements are resorted by Product Owners to promote and advertise the products and brands when the original product cannot be advertised on mass media. Struggle Against Pain v. State of U.P., 2019 (3) AWC 2930.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commercial Law, Surrogate Advertisements

Inter Se Suitability

In English parlance, the word “suitable” is assigned the meaning as “appropriate, fitted for the purpose or acceptable”. Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “suitable” as “well fitted for the purpose; appropriate”. This ordinary meaning is to be given effect to as a general guide, unless this expression is given special meaning in a statute or rule in administrative instructions. In R. (Quintavalle) v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, (2005) 2 AC 561 : (2005) 2 WLR 1061 : 2005 UKHL 28, the House of Lords remarked that “the word “suitability” is an empty vessel which is filled with meaning by context and background”.

In service jurisprudence, where the word “suitable” is normally examined from the point of view as to whether a particular person is suitable to hold a particular post, it is construed as “fit” to hold that post. It would mean that the job profile and job requirement of a particular post would be seen and then, going by the calibre, competence, attributes, skill and experience of the candidate, it would be ascertained as to whether such a person would be able to discharge the duties of the post i.e. whether he is suited to carry out the functions of the post, to the satisfaction of his employer.

The prefix “inter se” has also to be given some meaning as it cannot be rendered otiose. Therefore, whereas while assessing “suitability”, it has to be seen that a particular officer is not unfit for the post, when it comes to “inter se suitability”, it has reference to assessing the suitability of all eligible officers and thereafter finding who is more suitable to occupy such a post. Union of India v. Manomoy Ganguly, (2018) 9 SCC 65.

Leave a comment

Filed under Inter Se Suitability

Service Related Claim – Based on a Continuing Wrong

In the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, it was held as under:
“To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue related to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc. affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principle relating to recurring/successive wrong will apply. Habib Ali v. State of U.P., 2015 (4) AWC 4174.

Leave a comment

Filed under Continuing Wrong, Employment Law

Increments – During Suspension

Increment has a definite concept in service law jurisprudence. It is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. As noted in SBI v. Central Government Labour Court, (1972) 3 SCC 595, under the labour and industrial laws, an increment is when in a timescale of pay an employee advances from the lower point of scale to the higher by periodic additions. In other words, it is addition in the same scale and not to a higher scale. An increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and drawing full salary. During the period of suspension, the contract of service remains suspended. The order of suspension by the departmental enquiry has the effect of temporarily suspending the relations between the master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and, therefore, an employee is not entitled to increments during this period which is taken as period not spent on duty. State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh Kanwar, (2014) 13 SCC 622.

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Increments During Suspension

Employee has an interest to seniority and a right to be considered for promotion

Chances of promotion are not conditions of service, but negation of even the chance of promotion certainly amounts to variation in the conditions of service attracting infraction of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No employee has a right to particular position in the seniority list but all employees have a right to seniority since the same forms the basis of promotion.
An employee has always an interest to seniority and a right to be considered for promotion. If after integration, only the chances of promotion are affected, it would have been only a case of heartburn of an individual or a few individuals which is only to be ignored, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in T.N. Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1980) 3 SCC 97.
In S.S. Bola v. B.D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522, it was held as under:
“A distinction between the right to be considered for promotion and an interest to be considered for promotion has always been maintained. Seniority is a facet of interest. The rules prescribe the method of recruitment/selection. Seniority is governed by the rules existing as on the date of consideration for promotion. Seniority is required to be worked out according to the existing rules. No one has a vested right to promotion or seniority. But an officer has an interest to seniority acquired by working out the rules. The seniority should be taken away only by operation of valid law. Right to be considered for promotion is a rule prescribed by conditions of service. A rule which affects chances of promotion of a person relates to conditions of service. The rule/provision in an Act merely affecting the chances of promotion “would not be” regarded as varying the conditions of service. The chances of promotion are not conditions of service. A rule which merely affects the chances of promotion does not amount to change in the conditions of service. However, once a declaration of law, on the basis of existing rules, is made by a constitutional court and a mandamus is issued or direction given for its enforcement by preparing the seniority list, operation of the declaration of law and the mandamus and directions issued by the court is the result of the declaration of law but not the operation of the rules per se.” Panchraj Tiwari v. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101.

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Promotion

Post Against Promotee Quota – Can only be filled by Promotion

In a recent Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sita Kumar v. State of U.P., while dealing with the issue of Promotion on the Post of Promotee Quota, it was held as under:
“That a candidate eligible for appointment against the promote quota would be appointed against the promotee quota subject to fulfilling all the eligibility qualifications for the said post and that the said post could not be filled up by a candidate on compassionate grounds by allocating the post of the promotee quota to a direct recruitment candidate.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Promotion