Equal protection

Record showed that the petitioner had already benefited from a time-scale upgradation policy, which was designed to address the precise concern of stagnation

Granting the petitioner further individualized relief would amount to an enrichment beyond the policy's intent, creating preferential treatment rather than correcting an inequality

Thus, Petitioner's reliance on alleged comparators did not suffice

Constitutional equal protection was implicated only where similarly situated individuals are treated differently without any rational basis

In the present case, the determination of Committee on Upgradation that the petitioner' post had already been benefited and was thus ineligible for further upgradation, constituted a rational and policy-based justification for the decision

Thus, the Petitioner had not demonstrated any vested right to further upgradation

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Meaning and scope.

High Court observed that Presiding Officers were to be equally protected from frivolous transfer applications so that litigant was not in a position to overawe the Presiding Officer

While exercising to transfer cases from sub-ordinate Courts, balance had to be struck in order to ensure that cases were not transferred merely on the basis of suppositions, unfounded and conjectural apprehensions

Merely an adverse judicial order passed against a party would not solely be a sufficient ground for transfer of case as the aggrieved person had the remedy to challenge order before a higher forum

No substantial ground or material had been brought on record which might justify the transfer of case

Transfer Application was dismissed in limine.