Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)

Sanjay Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 October, 2025

In this context, she first relies on paras 21 and 22 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bobindra Kumar v Union of India14 and para 49 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jagmohan Vishwakarma v Union of India15. She submits that Bobindra Kumar clearly holds that the 1978 OM does not apply to the Armed Forces and further that it has no application where seniority is not roster-based. The 1978 OM, she submits, deals with the starting point for fixing the roster and not with the concept of "order of selection", which is the principle envisaged in Rule 8(2) of the 2003 RRs/Rule 5(2) of the 2010 RRs. As the seniority could not, therefore, be fixed on the basis of Rule 8(2) of the 2003 RRs or Rule 5(2) of the 2010 RRs and sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause 8(3) of the 2003 RRs or Clause 5(3) of the 2010 RRs were not applicable, the inter se seniority among direct recruit ACs and LDCE/promotee ACs had necessarily to be worked out on the basis of Rule 8(3)(iv) of the 2003 RRs/Rule 5(3)(iv) of the 2010 RRs.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Anil Kumar Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 May, 2025

29. To begin with, on the question of delay in approaching the Court to challenge the seniority list, we refer to the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra), where the Supreme Court dealt Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2834/2022 Page 11 of 19 By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:54:00 with the issue of entertaining the petition challenging a long standing seniority filed at a belated stage and held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1