Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs S. K. Koul And Ors on 4 December, 2012

Arvind Kumar Gupta vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 17 May, 2018

11. In the instant case we find that for the vacancies of the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 against 20% quota meant for LDCE, the LDCE was held in the year 2006 and vide order dated 28.6.2011 (Annexure A-5) the applicant was notionally promoted as Head Clerk/ Assistant with effect from 14.11.2006, as a special case, in terms of the order dated 10.02.2010 (Annexure R-1), which stipulated that "the Head Clerk/ Accountants/ Assistants working under the zonal heads of Hyderabad/ Bhopal/Jaipur, who have qualified the departmental examination held during March 2006 for promotion of UDC/SK to the post of Head Clerk/Assistant may be granted notional promotion w.e.f. the date of declaration of result in the zone of Hyderabad/Bhopal/ Jaipur". Thus, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of S.K.Dubey (supra) we are of the considered opinion that since the applicant has already been given notional promotion from the date of declaration of the result of LDCE i.e. w.e.f. Page 9 of 10 Subject: seniority on qualifying departmental examination 10 OA No.11/2013 14.11.2006, he is not further entitled for promotion from an earlier date i.e. from the date of occurrence of vacancy, as sought for by him.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Sanjay Bhardwaj & Ors on 2 February, 2016

4. The decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustainable in view of W.P.(C) 8185/2014 Page 2 of 4 the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on identical facts in Civil Appeal No. 7830/2014, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. S.K. Dubey & Ors decided on 12th August, 2014. The Supreme Court while dealing with a similar order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur has observed that the directions cannot be sustained for several reasons including there was no rule with regard to assigning a notional date of promotion with retrospective effect and ROTA was not applicable. Lastly, it was well settled that a person appointed on promotion shall not get seniority in earlier years but shall get a seniority of the year in which his/her appointment was made in the absence of express provision to the contrary. It was held that the applicable rules have nothing to do with inter se seniority between promotees of 75% quota based upon seniority-cum-fitness and 25% competitive exam quota on the basis of which the respondents have been selected. Notably, the Supreme Court had set aside decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dated 26th April, 2010 passed in OA No.181/2009 and the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 21 st April, 2011. This decision of the Supreme Court squarely applies and covers the W.P.(C) 8185/2014 Page 3 of 4 facts and legal question raised. The impugned decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document
1