Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing Bhavani Timber Mart vs The Union Of Inida Thr. Secretary ... on 16 February, 2022

Dr P Hema Mythily vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Dr Kalavathi M vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Dr Mamatha Shri V vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Dr Reshma Kulkarni vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Dr S Janitha vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Dr Anoop Nai vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Dr Reshma Kulkarni vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

Dr. Kalavathi M vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2023

33. In service matters, public interest must essentially mean the interest of the employer, and a useful reference could be made to the enunciation by 96 the Delhi High Court that, "public interest vis-a-vis a government servant would normally be the interest of the government"27. If certain Dental Health Officers are brought on deputation when GDC was not registered as an autonomous institution and if some of these officers are absorbed [the reference is to the absorption of 21 Dental Health Officers in the month of August 2008.], and insofar as the other officers on deputation, a persistent request is made by GDC for absorption over a period of two years citing a possible de-recognition [or a reduction in seats] as the reason, this Court is persuaded to opine that the dominant hue in the decision to absorb will be that of public interest viz., the interest of GDC. This is better emphaised when examined in the contrasting position. The absorption would dominantly be on request when a few officers on their own initiative, and for their own reasons, have submitted a representation for absorption. Therefore, it 27 T.P. Mahajan v. Union of India and others - 1977 SCC Online Delhi 97 is opined that the absorption of Dr M Kalavathi and Dr. Hema must be construed as being in public interest, and because Dr. M Kalavathi's absorption is not challenged, their absorption can be disturbed, and their right to previous service on deputation for the purposes of seniority cannot be denied if it is shown that they were equally circumstanced and duly qualified as on the date of their deputation.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document
1