C. Channe Gowda And Anr. vs High Court Of Karnataka, Rep. By Its ... on 10 September, 2004
5. K. SAMANTARAY V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2003(6) Supreme Page 852.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 83 (0.56 seconds)Documents citing
K. Samantaray vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 12 September, 2003
Government Of India vs Md.Abbas Mohideen on 18 December, 2020
84. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Samantaray Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 9 SCC 286, nobody has
a right to be promoted. They only have a right to be considered for
promotion. Therefore, though the appellants have wrongly denied
promotion to the rank of a Commandant respondent earlier, it cannot be
helped under the circumstances.
Ashok Kumar Nigam vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 16 June, 2010
The aforesaid
view taken by us also finds support from the decision rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Samantaray Vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 4422.
V.V.Ramana Murthy, vs Sangameswara Grameena Bank, on 23 December, 2021
16. Reference may also be made to a decision of this Court
in K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2004) 9 SCC
286 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 864] , observed as under: (SCC pp. 289-90,
para 7)
Ramesh Rai vs Chairman, S.K.G. Bank And Ors. on 25 February, 2005
In K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 4422, the Hon'ble apex Court explained the distinction and difference between principles of merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit, placing reliance upon earlier judgments in Sant Ram (supra) ; Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., JT 1990 (3) SC 468, and held that for the purpose of promotion, even on seniority-cum-merit, weightage in terms of numerical marks for various categories, the authority is permitted to work out the marks for individual head otherwise the word 'merit' would loose its sanctity.
R.K. Pandey Son Of Late R.A. Pandey vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. ... on 16 February, 2006
18. We also do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that uniform objective and transparent norms were not followed for awarding marks under the various categories. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that out of the 50 marks for C.R. only 15 marks are allotted for performance whereas 35 marks are allotted for traits and growth potential. As stated above, it is for the employer to satisfy the area and parameter of weightage and so long as the policy is not a colourable exercise of power, the Courts should not interfere in the said policy, Learned Counsel for the petitioned has not been able to substantiate that this policy was, in any way, a colourable exercise of power. This apart, in the case of K. Samantaray (supra), the Supreme Court examined the same criteria for promotion from the post of Administrative Officer to the post of Assistant Manager in the Insurance Company and found nothing objectionable in the award of 35 marks for traits and growth potential. Thus this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot also be accepted.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, ... vs Mohammad Shariph Son Of Mohammad Hafiz ... on 9 November, 2006
Rajendra Prasad Yadav Son Of Sri ... vs Chairman, Samyut Kshetriya Gramin ... on 28 January, 2008
In K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the distinction and difference between principles of merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit, placing reliance upon earlier judgments in Sant Ram (supra); Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; and held that for the purpose of promotion, even on seniority-cum-merit, weightage in terms of numerical marks for various categories, the authority Is permitted to work out the marks for individual head otherwise the word 'merit would loose its sanctity.
Yogendra Rai vs Adhyaksha, Basti Gramin Bank And Ors. on 30 January, 2008
In K. Samantaray v. National Insurance Company Ltd. , the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the distinction and difference between principles of merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit, placing reliance upon earlier judgments in Sant Ram (supra); Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Employees Association (Regd.) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1990 Supp SCC 350, and held that for the purpose of promotion, even on seniority-cum-merit, weightage in terms of numerical marks for various categories, the authority is permitted to work out the marks for individual head otherwise the word ''merit' would loose its sanctity.
Harihar Deka vs Gauhati High Court And Ors. on 10 March, 2006
Statutes, it is often said, should be construed not as theorems of Euclid but with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them and to be too literal in the meaning of words is to see the skin and miss the soul. The method suggested for adoption, in cases of doubt as to the meaning of the words, the context, which gives colour, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequences or the spirit and reason of the law. The general words and collocation or phrases, howsoever, wide or comprehensive in their literal sense are interpreted from the context and scheme underlying in the text of the Act. The decision in Utkal Contractors and Joinery (P.) Ltd. case also emphasizes the need to construe the words in a provision in the context of the scheme underlying the other provisions of the Act as well, which ultimately was considered to be in tune with the object set out in the statement of the Objects and Reasons and in the Preamble.