Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing N.Ganesan vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 20 April, 2010

R.Gnanasekhar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its on 1 February, 2023

16. Following the said judgment, I have also held in the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.9264 of 2004 (N.Ganesan vs The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai) that when there was no charge pending against the 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14080 of 2017 petitioner therein as on the crucial date for drawing the panel for promotion, the contention of the petitioner that his name should be included in the panel of Quality Inspector for the year 1992 as on that date he was fully qualified and eligible and entitled for promotion needs to be accepted, since the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board vs Mahinder Songh reported in 2000(7) SCC 210 keeping in mind that as on the crucial date namely, 01.10.1992, the petitioner was eligible and within the zone of consideration. In the present case, as per Clause II(2) to Schedule-XI Part-A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, since the charge memo issued against the petitioner on 05.05.2017 has been stayed as it was issued with an afterthought to preempt his chance of becoming Additional Commissioner, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for his empanelment by drawing up of panel on 01.10.2016.”.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

R.Gnanasekhar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its on 1 February, 2023

16. Following the said judgment, I have also held in the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.9264 of 2004 (N.Ganesan vs The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai) that 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14080 of 2017 when there was no charge pending against the petitioner therein as on the crucial date for drawing the panel for promotion, the contention of the petitioner that his name should be included in the panel of Quality Inspector for the year 1992 as on that date he was fully qualified and eligible and entitled for promotion needs to be accepted, since the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board vs Mahinder Songh reported in 2000(7) SCC 210 keeping in mind that as on the crucial date namely, 01.10.1992, the petitioner was eligible and within the zone of consideration. In the present case, as per Clause II(2) to Schedule-XI Part-A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, since the charge memo issued against the petitioner on 05.05.2017 has been stayed as it was issued with an afterthought to preempt his chance of becoming Additional Commissioner, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for his empanelment by drawing up of panel on 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14080 of 2017 01.10.2016.”.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

R.Gnanasekar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.By Its on 19 June, 2017

16.Following the said judgment, I have also held in the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.9264 of 2004 (N.Ganesan vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai) that when there was no charge pending against the petitioner therein as on the crucial date for drawing the panel for promotion, the contention of the petitioner that his name should be included in the panel of Quality Inspector for the year 1992 as on that date he was fully qualified and eligible and entitled for promotion needs to be accepted, since the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Mahinder Singh reported in 2000 (7) SCC 210 keeping in mind that as on the crucial date namely, 01.10.1992, the petitioner was eligible and within the zone of consideration. In the present case, as per Clause II(2) to Schedule-XI Part-A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, since the charge memo issued against the petitioner on 05.05.2017 has been stayed as it was issued with an afterthought to preempt his chance of becoming Additional Commissioner, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for his empanelment by drawing up of panel on 01.10.2016.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - T Raja - Full Document
1