Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors vs State Of A.P. & Ors on 7 November, 2001

K.Krishna Swamy vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2025

It is submitted that the U.O. Note dt.15.02.2003 was issued pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State 1 (2001) 10 SCC 401 W.P.(TR) No.6454 of 2017 7 of Andhra Pradesh and others (1 supra) and the petitioners were not given promotions thereunder. It is submitted that juniors were not promoted vide G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010, but their posts were upgraded and since the petitioners had retired prior to such date, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010 cannot be granted to the petitioners.
Telangana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaik Shafi Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2024

49. W.P.(TR).No.6009 of 2017 has been filed to declare that the appointment of Junior Lecturers working in the Government Junior Colleges by transfer is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State of A.P 4 and not to fill up the post held by the petitioner in S.R. Government Arts & Science College, Kothagudem and also to renew the appointment of the petitioner as contract Lecturer for the academic year 2016-2017. Admittedly, the Junior Lecturers working in the Government Junior Colleges have not been transferred and filled the post held by the petitioner herein. In fact, Smt. T.Aruna Kumari, who was working in the Government Degree College, Khammam has been transferred and posted in S.R. Govt. Degree College (Arts & Science college), Kothagudem in the place of the petitioner 4 AIR 2002 SC 77 24 herein. Further, petitioner filed another W.P.No.34312 of 2016 to renew his services. It is also represented that petitioner's services were renewed for the year 2016-17 and therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaik Shafi Ahamed vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Orther on 31 January, 2024

49. W.P.(TR).No.6009 of 2017 has been filed to declare that the appointment of Junior Lecturers working in the Government Junior Colleges by transfer is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State of A.P 4 and not to fill up the post held by the petitioner in S.R. Government Arts & Science College, Kothagudem and also to renew the appointment of the petitioner as contract Lecturer for the academic year 2016-2017. Admittedly, the Junior Lecturers working in the Government Junior Colleges have not been transferred and filled the post held by the petitioner herein. In fact, Smt. T.Aruna Kumari, who was working in the Government Degree College, Khammam has been transferred and posted in S.R. Govt. Degree College (Arts & Science college), Kothagudem in the place of the petitioner 4 AIR 2002 SC 77 24 herein. Further, petitioner filed another W.P.No.34312 of 2016 to renew his services. It is also represented that petitioner's services were renewed for the year 2016-17 and therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaik Shafi Ahamed vs The Commissioner Of Collegiate ... on 31 January, 2024

49. W.P.(TR).No.6009 of 2017 has been filed to declare that the appointment of Junior Lecturers working in the Government Junior Colleges by transfer is violative of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V.Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State of A.P 4 and not to fill up the post held by the petitioner in S.R. Government Arts & Science College, Kothagudem and also to renew the appointment of the petitioner as contract Lecturer for the academic year 2016-2017. Admittedly, the Junior Lecturers working in the Government Junior Colleges have not been transferred and filled the post held by the petitioner herein. In fact, Smt. T.Aruna Kumari, who was working in the Government Degree College, Khammam has been transferred and posted in S.R. Govt. Degree College (Arts & Science college), Kothagudem in the place of the petitioner 4 AIR 2002 SC 77 24 herein. Further, petitioner filed another W.P.No.34312 of 2016 to renew his services. It is also represented that petitioner's services were renewed for the year 2016-17 and therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
Telangana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Madhava Reddy & Ors vs Govt.Of A.P.& Ors on 29 April, 2014

In V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 401, a three-Judge Bench was examining whether Special Rules framed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to the extent the same permitted “appointment by transfer” to a higher category on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency were violative of para 5(2) of the Presidential Order issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India, 1950. Answering the question in the affirmative this Court held that the Presidential Order dated 18th October, 1975 issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution was aimed at providing equitable opportunities and facilities to the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matter of public employment, education etc. and that the Rules framed by the State Government under proviso to Article 309 whereby UDCs of the Labour Department, and Factories and Boilers Department were made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Assistant Inspector of Labour/Assistant Inspector of Factories were violative of the Presidential Order. The question had arisen on account of a challenge mounted by the Ministerial employees of the Labour Department against GOMs No.72 dated 25th February, 1986 and GOMs No.117 dated 28th May, 1986 whereunder UDCs in the Labour Department and those working in Factories and Boilers Department were made eligible for recruitment by transfer to the posts of Assistant Inspectors of Labour and Assistant Inspectors of Factories. A full Bench of Tribunal before whom the challenge came up for consideration declared that the impugned Rules to the extent they enabled the Ministerial employees of the Factories and Boilers Department or any other department to be considered for appointment to the posts in the Labour Department were violative of paras 3 and 5 of the Presidential Order and hence void. The view taken by the Tribunal was questioned before this Court by the aggrieved employees. Dismissing the appeals, this Court held that according to the scheme of the Presidential Order, local cadre was the unit under para 5(1) thereof for recruitment, appointment, seniority, promotion and transfers. This Court further held that while para 5(2) authorised the State Government to make provisions for ‘transfer’ in certain specified circumstances, yet the term ‘transfer’ could not be enlarged in its amplitude so as to include promotional aspects. This Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 37 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao vs State Of A.P. . on 22 April, 2020

87. This Court in V. Jagannadha Rao and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 401 held that Article 371D(1) of the Constitution unequivocally indicates that the said article and any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. The Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 200 - Cited by 118 - A Mishra - Full Document

Shri Sanjeev Kapoor vs Ntpc Ltd. And Anr. on 27 September, 2021

47. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in the case of Sanjeet Sharma & Ors. (supra) relied upon by Mr. Gupta is concerned, the case of inter cadre transfer was held to be bad being in violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court including Kavi Raj & Ors. (supra) and V. Jagannadha Rao & Ors. (supra). The same has no applicability in the facts of this case, in view of my conclusion in paragraphs 44 and 45.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

G.Sagar, vs The Govt. Of A.P., on 22 June, 2022

Dr.K.S.Jawatkar the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a post-graduation centre opened in one university was transferred to another university and consequently the employees recruited for the post-graduation centre were also transferred to the latter university. The Supreme Court held that such employees cannot be transferred to the latter university as their contract of employment or appointment was in the former university. An extreme principle was also laid down in the said case which is it shall also be open for the university to terminate such employees on the principle of "last come, first go", if the abolition of posts in the post-graduation centre becomes necessary. However, in none of the first four cases referred to in this para the present situation pleaded by the Government and the scope of public interest clause contained in Para-5(2)(c) was considered and the fifth decision cited in this para is not relevant at all. A Full Bench decision of this court is relevant to Para-5(2)(c) and we will refer to it a little later. A number of other decisions were also cited by the petitioners' counsel but we do not consider it necessary to refer to them as they are not relevant for deciding this question.
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Mohd. Khader vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 October, 2022

Dr.K.S.Jawatkar the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a post-graduation centre opened in one university was transferred to another university and consequently the employees recruited for the post-graduation centre were also transferred to the latter university. The Supreme Court held that such employees cannot be transferred to the latter university as their contract of employment or appointment was in the former university. An extreme principle was also laid down in the said case which is it shall also be open for the university to terminate such employees on the principle of "last come, first go", if the abolition of posts in the post-graduation centre becomes necessary. However, in none of the first four cases referred to in this para the present situation pleaded by the Government and the scope of public interest clause contained in Para-5(2)(c) was considered and the fifth decision cited in this para is not relevant at all. A Full Bench decision of this court is relevant to Para-5(2)(c) and we will refer to it a little later. A number of other decisions were also cited by the petitioners' counsel but we do not consider it necessary to refer to them as they are not relevant for deciding this question.
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A K Shavili - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next