Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing K.B. Shukla And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 1979

Registrar General Of High Court And Anr. vs Chitra Biswas And Ors. on 21 April, 2005

10. Admittedly, transfer is an incidence of service. The employer is the best person to decide the question of transfer. Admittedly, the order of transfer was passed in administrative exigencies. In the absence of any allegation of mala fide, the order of transfer cannot be said to be justiciable. In the writ petition, there was no allegation of mala fide or infraction of any statutory rules or procedures. If the order of transfer was passed, as was held in K.B. Shukla (supra), in exigency of administration, then such order cannot be interfered with.
Calcutta High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document

V.K. Kumar vs Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanga Than And Ors. on 28 May, 1982

In K. B. Shukla and others Vs. Union of India and others 1979 (2) S. L. R. 58(4), the Supreme Court observed as under : "IT is true that formation of opinion by the Central Government as to the 'existence of exigencies of the service' requiring appointment by such method, is a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power. But the formation of such opinion is a matter which, in view of the peculiar nature of the function and the language of the provision, has primarily been left to the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Indeed it is as it ought to be. The responsibility for good administration is that of the Government. The maintenance of an efficient, honest and experienced administrative service is a must for the due discharge of that responsibility. Therefore, the Government alone is a best suited to judge as to the existence of exigencies of such a service requiring appointments by transfer. The term "exigency" being understood in its widest and pragmative sense as a rule, the court would not judge the propriety or sufficiency of such opinion by objective standards; save where the subjective process, of forming it is vitiated by mala fides, dishonesty, extraneous purpose or transgression of the limits circumscribed by the legislation".
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devinder Kumar And Ors. vs Delhi Development Act And Anr. on 16 January, 2006

32. It has been held often that in the absence of a right to promotion, the recruitment or promotion policies or rule, at best confer chances of promotion upon a public employee; a change in such policies per se does not affect the rights of existing employees. (See K.B. Shukla and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. and Reserve Bank Of India v. C. N. Sahasranaman 1986 (SUP)SCC 143).
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Basanta Kumar Roy vs Idbi Bank Limited & Ors on 24 December, 2009

16. Appearing for the bank, Mr. Mukherjee justified the transfer on the ground that this was necessary for administrative reason. In fact, in the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the bank it has been pleaded that the said transfer was necessary in view of the expanding activities of the bank. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the bank found business potential greater at Barasat in comparison to Bansdroni and as such the petitioner being the seniormost clerical staff was being transferred there. Mr. Mukherjee emphasised that transfer was incidence of service and the employer always has the choice to select which employee would be transferred where, as per their own assessment. The judgments cited on this point were decisions in the cases of K. B. Shukla Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 1136, Syndicate Bank Vs. Its Workers reported in 1966(1)LLJ page 440, Shanti Kumari Vs. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services Patna reported in AIR 1981 SC 1577, Union of India Vs. S. L. Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444, State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt reported in AIR 1993 SC 2486.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - A Bose - Full Document

Chandra Shekhar Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 August, 2015

20. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the petitioner had created a situation of transferring teachers contrary to the provision of Rules 4 and 5 of the Bihar Rajya Rajkiyakrit Prarambhik Vidyalaya Shikshak (Sthanantaran evam Anushasnik Karrvahi) Niyamavali, 2002 and thereby had created administrative exigency for the Government that by itself can be a good ground for transfer of such a person. Such 'administrative exigency' in the context of transfer of a Government servant was explained by the Apex Court in the case of K.B.Shukla vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1136 in following words:
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M K Jha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next