Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 454 (1.72 seconds)
Documents citing B. Varadha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 28 October, 1986

Bindu Venugopal vs M/O Agriculture on 28 February, 2018

43. At the cost of some repetition, we observe that the law on judicial intervention 41 OA No.426/2017 into matters of transfer is well settled through a catena of decisions by the Apex Court in, B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India v. S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, Union of India Vs. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1605; Rajender Roy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1236; Ramadhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 35; N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India & ors., (1994) 6 SCC 98& AIR (1995) SC 423; Chief General Manager (Tel.)
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs Binu Sunil vs M/O Agriculture on 28 February, 2018

41. At the cost of some repetition, we observe that the law on judicial intervention into matters of transfer is well settled through a catena of decisions by the Apex Court in, B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka (supra), Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India v. S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, Union of 43 OA No.424/2017 India Vs. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1605; Rajender Roy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1236; Ramadhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 35; N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India & ors., (1994) 6 SCC 98& AIR (1995) SC 423; Chief General Manager (Tel.)
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs Sheela Raj vs M/O Agriculture on 28 February, 2018

41. At the cost of some repetition, we observe that the law on judicial intervention into matters of transfer is well settled through a catena of decisions by the Apex Court in, B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India v. S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, Union of India Vs. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1605; Rajender Roy Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1236; Ramadhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 35; N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India & ors., (1994) 6 SCC 98& AIR (1995) SC 423; Chief General Manager (Tel.)
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Forum Of We Bankers And Another vs Central Government Industrial ... on 2 November, 2023

"........Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the B. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. ....."
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Amar Veer Singh vs Union Of India Through on 3 January, 2013

4. The petitioner-appellant, who was an Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Muzaffarnagar, had in his writ petition challenged his transfer by the State Government by order dated 21.6.2005 as Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Mawana, District Meerut. Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the Courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency of service vide B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1986 SC 1955, Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 532, Union of India Vs. N.P. Thomas AIR 1993 SC 1605, Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444 etc.    .
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Manoranjan Debbarma vs M/O Defence on 19 December, 2025

The conclusion we have reached in the present case is for the reasons given by us and not those which impelled the Tribunal to reject the appellant's claim. iii. Judgment and order dated 26.08.1986 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 7904 of 1986 in the case of B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. wherein it says that - "It cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not conductive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anita Vishwakarma vs Kvs on 9 May, 2023

20. Considering the above ratio of judgements, in the instant case also, the applicant has yet to join at the transferred place and her only argument is that she was protected by Rule 6 of the Transfer Guidelines being a husband-wife case. Although, she is in her present place of posting for more than a decade and that her son is not well and having epilepsy. I do not find any report of any doctor which shows that such epilepsy needs the presence of the boy only in the present place of posting and it cannot be treated at Belgam district where Chikodi is located and from Chikodi at just one and half hours' distance, the best of more than one medical colleges are available at Belgam and two medical colleges at one hour distance at Kolhapur adjoining Maharashtra. The applicant has attached to the OA many routine medical papers of her son, but in the absence of an opinion based certificate of essentiality, such paper do not make out a case in favour of the applicant. The contention of the applicant regarding the ratio of judgements are mostly of coordinate Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal and few orders from the Hon'ble High Court which do not stand in front of the large number of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgements relied on by the respondents i.e. (i) B.Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 132;
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Amala Devi, Joint Director Of Health ... vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 11 April, 2005

In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of the promotion. Whereas, in this case, enough materials have been produced by the respondents to justify the respondents' taking into account the cumulative effect of the petitioner's service. Even (B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka) cannot help the petitioner. In this case, the Supreme Court has observed in para 4 as follows :-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Dr. O.P. Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 6 May, 2005

In B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka & Others (supra) the Supreme Court held that transfer of a Government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage and that a Government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre and this is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless his appointment itself is to a specified non-transferable post. In the said decision, Supreme Court has however held that if the power of transfer is abused, the exercise of such power is vitiated.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - S K Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next