Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 225 (1.49 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007

A.Ravindra Nath Reddy vs The Union Of India & Ors on 5 March, 2010

6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that, in view of the bench mark as per the relevant office memorandum, the candidate must have `very good' remarks for the preceding five years. Therefore, his remarks `good' for the three years in question, which were not communicated to him, could not have been taken into account. He relies on paragraph -11 of the judgment in Union of India vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (supra), which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:-
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S K Katriar - Full Document

Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010

12. The above case has also been considered in Union of India & others v. Sangram Keshari Nayak, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 587 where paragraph 6 of the circular dated 21.1.1993, which is in pari materia of DOPT OM of 1992 as to the sealed cover, taking note of decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. R.S. Sharma, (2000) 4 SCC 394, it has been held that when the charge sheet has not been issued resort to the sealed cover is not in consonance with law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 211 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mahavir Singh vs Dda & Ors on 3 December, 2012

30. Further, in our considered view, the Applicants case cannot be defeated on the basis of the observation of the Apex Court in K.V. Jankiramans case (supra) that an employee has no right to promotion but he has only a right to be considered for promotion. The Apex Court has stated that the promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances and to qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. As held in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007 (6) SCC 704), the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and it involves effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration and the promotion can be denied only on the basis of valid rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P.Thru ... vs Kamlesh Chandra on 23 May, 2023

41. None of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after issuance of the O.M. dated 28.05.1997, viz. Union of India versus Sudha Salhan, Union of India versus R. S. Sharma and Union of India versus Sangram Keshari Nayak, have taken into consideration the provisions contained in the aforesaid O.M. Therefore, none of these judgments would be relevant for interpreting such of the provisions of the O.M. dated 28.05.1997, as are not there in the O.M. dated 12.01.1988 issued by the Government of India.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - D K Upadhyaya - Full Document

Sh. R.S. Gupta vs Govt. Of National Capital Territory Of ... on 24 February, 2009

12. The Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Sangram Keshri Nayak [2007(6)SCC 704) was dealing with a case where promotion was denied by wrongly following the sealed cover procedure. The Court held in Para-11 that promotion is not a fundamental right. Right to be considered for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however, must be left at the hands of the DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of the rules applicable therefore It was also observed that right could be curtailed only by reason of valid rules which in turn, cannot be construed in a manner so as to curtail the right of promotion more than what was contemplated by law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sudarshan Lal vs M/O Science And Technology on 28 November, 2018

24. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon Chaman Lal Lakhanpal v/s UPSC, 1998 (3) SLR 436 (P&H), P.N. Premchandran v/s State of Kerala, 2004 (1) SCC 245 and Union of India v/s Sangram Keshari Nayak, 2007 (6) SCC 704. We have perused the judgments. In none of these judgments, the question of OM dated 10.4.1989 or the conditions regarding the prospective effect of the promotions has arisen, as such, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri M.B. Motwani vs Uco Bank on 30 July, 2009

"4. A writ petition filed by him was allowed. The petitioner Bank filed an appeal upon grant of special leave thereagainst. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was whether in absence of any charge-sheet having been issued, the disciplinary proceedings could be said to have been initiated in view of the decisions of this Court in Union of India v K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, Union of India v Sangram Kehsari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704 and Coal India Ltd v Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007) 9 SCC 625."
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document

Raj Karan Yadav vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 14 August, 2018

(emphasis supplied) Following the decision in Delhi Development Authority vs H.C. Khurana's case (supra), similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Kewal Kumar's case (supra) Even in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak's case (supra), the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of H.C. Khurana's case (supra) and Kewal Kumar's case (supra) were noticed with approval.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sudarshan Lal vs M/O Science And Technology on 28 November, 2018

24. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon Chaman Lal Lakhanpal v/s UPSC, 1998 (3) SLR 436 (P&H), P.N. Premchandran v/s State of Kerala, 2004 (1) SCC 245 and Union of India v/s Sangram Keshari Nayak, 2007 (6) SCC 704. We have perused the judgments. In none of these judgments, the question of OM dated 10.4.1989 or the conditions regarding the prospective effect of the promotions has arisen, as such, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next