Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 129 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974

E. Sreeramulu vs K. Chengal Rayan And Ors. on 29 December, 1979

9. Sri R. Venugopal Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, while supporting the judgment under appeal, argued that the method of promotion could be categorised into three. One is, where under the rules framed, the criteria for promotion are prescribed as under: (a) seniority, (b) seniority-cum-efficiency; and (c) merit and ability. The second mode is, where the rules are silent with regard to the criteria for promotion but the the category of the post is stated, i.e. , selection or non-selection post, in which case merit and ability will be the dominant factors and seniority will be taken into consideration only when merit and ability are equal ; and in case of non-selection post, seniority will be the dominant factor and unless the candidate is positively declared as unfit, his case cannot be overlooked for promotion in preference to his junior. The third is where the rules do not lay down and criteria for promotion or categorise the post but merely say that promotion has to be made by selection. In this case also, the criteria that determine the promotion to a selection post are merit and ability, and seniority where merit and ability are equal. It was further argued that in the lower echelons, where seniority is prescribed for promotion, then there is no scope for merit or any process of assessment with regard to efficiency, seniority alone will have to be taken into consideration. For this, reliance was placed on State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri , referred to (supra) and also on Hari Datt v. State of H.P. (1974) S.L.J. 525 at 530, wherein a Full Bench of the Himachal High Court observed:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dilip Kumar Chatterjee vs Coal India Limited And Ors. on 20 February, 2002

16. It is undoubtedly a settled law that promotion to next grade cannot be claimed as a matter of right and a Court should not issue order of promotion [State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri & Ors. (supra)]. But in the said cited decision the Apex Court also observed that promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit is always problematic, and that if there is any positive proof of violation of the relevant Service Rules, the Court should interfere. In the instant case, as is indicated hereinabove, the respondents have admitted that on the basis of availability of promotional posts, the panel is prepared and this statement is sufficient to indicate that at the time of preparation of the panel, there were available posts for promotion. The departmental rule is that promotion can only be given fro the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and that being the position, it has not been clarified or demonstrated as to why the promotion was denied to the writ petitioner.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

George Harris vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 November, 1978

17. Following precedent, my decision in this review petition relating to the petitioner's seniority as Meteorological Assistant would have to be worked out by the Department. This will quite properly involve his entitlement to all the material consequences of relaxation of his rank in the seniority list in that grade. I express the hope, as the Supreme Court did in State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri 1974 I L.L.J. 301, that the Government will fairly reckon and grant to the petitioner the benefits which would be due to him on such basis.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Manager, P. And T. Motor Service vs Punnose on 17 January, 1979

5. The learned Judge referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri , as authority for the position that seniority-cum-fitness will not mean selection made on merit and ability, and that there was no question of any comparative assessment as such coming in. It was also stated that in such cases, no doubt, the suitability or fitness of the person concerned for promotion, his qualification, health, etc. might be relevant and will have to be considered. Counsel for the respondent very fairly drew our attention to a later judgment of the learned Judge himself in O.P. No. 205 of 1977 where the learned Judge stated thus:
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K.Premavalli vs The Secretary To Government on 22 September, 2016

4. Though very many contentions have been raised in the Writ Petition, the scope of the prayer is very limited that is only to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal dated 29.06.2016. Therefore, considering the very limited prayer made in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court directs the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 29.06.2016 on merits and in accordance with law, and also in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1974 (4) SCC 308 (State of Mysore v. C.R.Sheshadri) and a decision of this Court reported in 2006(1) L.W. Page 157 (P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D., The Tamil Nadu Housing Board) in W.P.No.26602 of 2005 dated 03.02.2006, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

N.Ashokan vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport on 10 September, 2018

'A retired Government official is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits. And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation of the superannuated public servant not unusual in http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Government', it has become necessary to issue directions, in several cases for early payment of those dues.---Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of State of Mysore v. C.R. Sheshadri and Ors. reported in 1974-I-LLJ-301 (SC).
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next