Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 869 (2.91 seconds)
Documents citing Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

Jaswinder Singh And Ors vs Punjab State Water Resources ... on 16 March, 2026

"15. A Constitution Bench in Sant Ram Sharma v.State of Rajasthan [Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910: (1968) 1 SCR 111] considered the applicability of the letters issued by the Government of India detailing the administrative practice for promotions, against the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The Constitution Bench held that: (AIR p. 1914, para 7) "7. We proceed to consider the next contention of Mr N.C. Chatterjee that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts the Government cannot issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions cannot impose any restrictions not found in the Rules already framed. We are unable to accept argument as correct. It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean MONIKA VERMA 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh CWP-30579-2025(O&M) -9- that till statutory rules are framed in this behalf the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principle to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs Medical Council Of India on 11 October, 2012

This Court has held in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan3 that although Government cannot supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, yet, if the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed and these instructions will govern the conditions of service.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

Partha Das vs The State Of Tripura on 28 August, 2025

“20. The office memorandum dated December 7, 1961 which purports to amend the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936 in our opinion cannot override, amend or supersede statutory rules. This memorandum is nothing but an administrative order or instruction and as such it cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by adding something therein as has been observed by this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC 1910 : (1968) 1 SCR 111 : (1968) 2 LLJ 830] . Moreover the benefits that have been conferred on the temporary Assistant Engineers who have become members of the service after being selected by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the service rules are entitled to have their seniority reckoned in accordance with the provisions of Rule 23 as it was then, from the date of their becoming member of the service, and this cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the rules of 1969 and 1971 as it is arbitrary, irrational and not reasonable.” 11 (1987) 3 SCC 622, 1987 INSC 163.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Annai J.K.K Sampoorani Ammal vs The Registrar on 14 October, 2019

Generally speaking, an administrative order confers no justiciable right, but this rule, like all other general rules, is subject to exceptions. This Court has held in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan3 that although Government cannot supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, yet, if the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed and these instructions will govern the conditions of service.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Partha Das vs The State Of Tripura on 28 August, 2025

“20. The office memorandum dated December 7, 1961 which purports to amend the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936 in our opinion cannot override, amend or supersede statutory rules. This memorandum is nothing but an administrative order or instruction and as such it cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by adding something therein as has been observed by this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC 1910 : (1968) 1 SCR 111 : (1968) 2 LLJ 830] . Moreover the benefits that have been conferred on the temporary Assistant Engineers who have become members of the service after being selected by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the service rules are entitled to have their seniority reckoned in accordance with the provisions of Rule 23 as it was then, from the date of their becoming member of the service, and this cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the rules of 1969 and 1971 as it is arbitrary, irrational and not reasonable.” 11 (1987) 3 SCC 622, 1987 INSC 163.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Dinesh Sharma S/O Ramniwas Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 March, 2026

"58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910, held: (AIR p. 1914, para 7) "7. ... It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next