Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 428 (2.68 seconds)
Documents citing Gurdial Singh Fijji vs State Of Punjab & Others on 9 March, 1979

C. Ramakant Naidu vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board ... on 24 June, 2005

In Gurudayal Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, , Amarkant Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, , it was held that unless an adverse report is communicated and. representation, if any, made by the employee is considered it may not be acted upon to deny the promotion. The same consideration applied where the adverse entries are taken into account in retiring an employee prematurely from service, K.N. Singh, J., speaking for the Bench observed : "it would be unjust and unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice to retire prematurely a Government employee on the basis of adverse entries which are either not communicated to him or if communicated, representations made against those entries are not considered and. disposed of."
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Jeet Lal Gupta And Anr. vs State Of J And K And Ors. on 23 February, 2004

In Gurdayal Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1982) 1 SCR 904 : AIR 1981 SC 2015, this Court held that a member of State Civil Service has no legal right to promotion, instead he has only right to be considered along with others. But assuming that appellants/petitioners stood superseded by the reason that junior officers to them were included in the select list, no reasons were necessary to be recorded in view of the amended statutory provision.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Raksh Pal Rana vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 May, 2000

5. It is clear from the aforesaid paragraph-6 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that adverse remarks of serious nature in the ACR for the period 15.7.1991 to 13.2.1992 and adverse remarks of serious nature in connection with petitioner's involvement in gunja smuggling activities and fabrication Of records made by the Reporting Officer (DIGP, CRPF, Ajmer) for period from 13.4.1995 to 20.10.1995 have been taken into consideration by the DPC for not recommending the petitioner for promoting. In paragraph-3 of the Writ Petition, however, the petitioner has expressly averred that during his service period no adverse remarks were ever communciated to him. The averments made in paragraph-3 have been answered in paragraph-5 of the affidavit-in-opposition and it has not been stated therein that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs of the petitioner were communicated to the petitioner. Thus, the adverse remarks for which the DPC did not recommend the petitioner for promotion have not been commu-niclated to the petitioner, and the petitioner has no opportunity to make a representation to the concerned authorities to expunge the said adverse remarks. Law is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) that an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communciated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its objects partially being to enable the superior authority to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified.
Gauhati High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Jagdish Chandra Sharma vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Judicature And ... on 25 May, 1998

In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1622, validity of resolution No. 1.1 vis-a-vis regulation Nos, 4 & 5 of India Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 was challenged. The appellant's case is quite different on facts and principle of law involved on both counts. Therefore, this case is of no help for the appellant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R K Singh - Full Document

Ahmad Ullah vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 13 September, 2019

In Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 368, this Court, dealing with a service matter, relying on the ratio in Capoor (supra), held that "rubber-stamp reason" is not enough and virtually quoted the observation in Capoor (supra) to the extent that reasons "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions." (See para 18 page 377).
Allahabad High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Meena Jaiswal vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 8 September, 2020

In Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 368, this Court, dealing with a service matter, relying on the ratio in Capoor (supra), held that "rubber-stamp reason" is not enough and virtually quoted the observation in Capoor (supra) to the extent that reasons "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions." (See para 18 page 377).
Allahabad High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalyanesh Kumar Bajpai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 October, 2000

In support of the contention that adverse remarks recorded in the ACR cannot be taken into account unless they are communicated, strong reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, 1979(1) SLR 804. The relevant extracts from the decision are reproduced below ;
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next