SHRIRAM TOMAR ETC. vs PRAVEEN KUMAR JAGGI . — C.A. No. 3603 - 3607/2019

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010347882008

Filing Date

01-Dec-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 3603 - 3607/2019

Diary Number

34788/2008

Order Date

09-Apr-2019

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2019 INSC 498

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 07-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRIRAM TOMAR ETC.

    Adv. RAJEEV SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAVEEN KUMAR JAGGI .

    Adv. KUNAL VERMA SATISH VIG SHIV SAGAR TIWARI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2019

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 09-Apr-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 09-Apr-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  5. 02-Apr-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 02-Apr-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  7. 01-Apr-2019

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  8. 25-Mar-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  9. 15-Feb-2019

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

  10. 30-Jul-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 01-May-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 01-May-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 21-Mar-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 21-Mar-2017

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 21-Mar-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 03-Feb-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 03-Feb-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 24-Jan-2017
  19. 24-Jan-2017
  20. 15-Nov-2016
  21. 15-Nov-2016
  22. 03-Oct-2016
  23. 03-Oct-2016
  24. 23-Aug-2016
  25. 23-Aug-2016
  26. 26-Oct-2015
  27. 26-Oct-2015
  28. 13-Apr-2015
  29. 13-Apr-2015
  30. 17-Apr-2014
  31. 28-Nov-2013
  32. 12-Aug-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  33. 12-Aug-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  34. 12-Aug-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  35. 12-Aug-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  36. 12-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  37. 15-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 05-Feb-2013
  39. 09-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 09-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 21-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  42. 08-Aug-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  43. 03-Jul-2012
  44. 03-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  45. 12-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  46. 04-Nov-2011
  47. 26-Sep-2011
  48. 20-Sep-2011
  49. 14-Sep-2011
  50. 20-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  51. 29-Mar-2011
  52. 24-Feb-2011
  53. 18-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  54. 08-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  55. 05-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  56. 01-Oct-2010
  57. 22-Mar-2010
  58. 19-Feb-2010
  59. 11-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  60. 07-Dec-2009
  61. 16-Nov-2009
  62. 05-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  63. 22-Oct-2009
  64. 17-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  65. 02-Sep-2009
  66. 12-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  67. 24-Jul-2009
  68. 24-Jul-2009
  69. 24-Jul-2009
  70. 13-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  71. 06-May-2009
  72. 13-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  73. 06-Apr-2009
  74. 04-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  75. 27-Feb-2009
  76. 01-Dec-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 3603 - 3607/2019

  77. [ 2019 INSC 498 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Supreme Court allowed appeals by promoted officers challenging the High Court's order quashing their promotion list to Junior Management Scale II at Mahakoshal Kshetriya Bank. The Court held that prescribing minimum qualifying marks (12 marks each in interview and performance appraisal) does not violate the seniority-cum-merit promotion principle, relying on precedent. The Court directed preparation of a fresh promotion list considering only candidates meeting the minimum benchmarks, then promoting them by seniority order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case