Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 58 (0.92 seconds)Documents citing
Dr. Rashmi Srivastava vs Vikram University & Ors on 20 April, 1995
Sri.N.Jayaramappa vs Principal Secretary on 21 August, 2023
NC: 2023:KHC:29680
WP No. 5853 of 2022
AICTE Regulations 2019, which would be within the
contemplation of the Universities Act, 2000, provide
the norm for inter se seniority between the Direct
Recruits and CAS Promotees. This statutory scheme
must prevail, and the petitioner cannot rely upon the
decision of the Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram
University and others supra.
Prof. Kaushal K Verma vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 4 April, 2014
Further in Para-14 of that affidavit of compliance, it was submitted by the deponent that the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava (supra) would have no universal application for fixing inter se seniority, and it has no application in the present case as well, and even the Honble Apex Court had not applied the ratio in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava (supra) in the case of Prof. S.A. Siddiqui vs. Prof. M. Wazid Khan & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 1. (Ultimately, as recorded by the Bench while disposing of the Contempt Petition, this contention was given up by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/alleged contemnor.)
R.M vs Vice on 9 July, 2008
2. While
passing the above order, the Registrar had taken into consideration
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rashmi
Srivastava vs. Vikram University & Ors. reported in 1995(2) Scale
871 and the opinion rendered by the Legal Department of the
University. The above decision was pertaining to inter se
determination of the seniority of the direct recruit and the promotee
and the promotee Professor is not to be equated with the direct
recruit Professor, while interpreting Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya
Adhiniyam, 1973 and Section 49 of Chapter 9 of the above Act.
Shiv Poojan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 20 May, 2019
"7. ... under the different Government Orders issued from time to time the teachers working in C.T. Grade become eligible to be considered for L.T. Grade as a personal pay scale. This does not mean the posting in L.T. Grade and the post which becomes vacant after the retirement of such a teacher would not be deemed to be a vacant post in L.T. Cadre nor such a person can take benefit on the post of the L.T. Grade for promotion and seniority as he is not holding the post in Grade in L.T. Grade vide Rashmi Srivastava v. University , Virendra Pandey v. State of U.P. 1994 (24) ALR (H) 19, Writ Petition No. 30754 of 1991 Madljuri Devi v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, decided on 20.3.1995 and Vipin Kumar v. District Inspectress of Schools 1993(2) Educational and Service Cases 456.
Najma Siddiqui (Prof.) vs University Of Delhi on 16 January, 1998
5. Before dealing with other points raised in the petition, I would like to discuss another preliminary objection raised by respondent No.2 i.e. that this petition suffers from delay and latches. Main grievance of Mr.S.S.Vats, counsel for respondent No.2 is that the seniority of the respondent No.2 relates back to the year 1983, when the respondent No.2 was declared senior as Reader. Again on 1st January, 1994 when he was promoted as Professor. Petitioners did not challenge the seniority list issued by the University since 1983 hence the petition suffers from delay. This shows petitioner waived and acquiesced. I find no force in this submission. There are two reasons for rejecting this contention. Firstly the picture of seniority between directly appointed Professors and Merit Promotees got cleared by the Apex Court in 1995 in the case of Dr.Rashmi Srivastava Vs. Vikram University. Therefore, petitioners asserted their right. Secondly petitioners felt aggrieved when respondent No.1 inspite of the Supreme Court decision appointed respondent No.2 as Head of the Department. Moreover, the cause of action is continuing one. For these reasons, I find no merits in this objection.
Fateh Kishan Kapil vs University Of Jodhpur & Ors on 7 April, 2011
From above points formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it is clear that in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava's case, there
was dispute with respect to the claim of inter se seniority
between the merit promotee Readers and Professors of
University and this issue cropped up because of the reason
that in Vikram University of M.P. also, the University Grant
Commission's CAS was implemented and promotions were
given to the University teachers under that scheme which
resulted into dispute between such promotee under scheme
and Readers and Professors appointed under relevant law
43
framed for the University of M.P. In this judgment of Dr.
Rashmi Srivastava, Hon'ble the Supreme Court even after
noticing that there is no provision in the Act or Statute
applicable to the said Vikram University giving opportunity
of personal promotion and there was promotion for merit
promotion in the statutory provisions applicable to the said
University, the appointments of teachers on the post of
Readers and Professors by way of promotion as well as ex-
cadre both the appointments; one by way of merit
promotion as provided under Section 49 of the M.P.
Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam and another under the scheme
framed by the UGC are valid, legal and permissible. So has
been held even after noticing that no amendments were
made in the said Act applicable to the Vikram University. We
would like to quote para 46 which is relevant for the
purpose of deciding this controversy and according to us
covers the entire issue and justifies the University action for
providing promotional opportunities by accepting the
scheme of the UGC, which is as under:-
Board Of Director, Ewing Christian ... vs Union Of India Thru' Secretary, Min. Of ... on 12 August, 2011
Vis-a-vis the provisions of U.G.C. Act and the provisions as contained under U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava vs. Vikram University, 1994 J.T. (4) SC 51, has held that in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Commission recommended implementation of Merit Promotion Scheme for University. This Scheme was accepted by the University and various promotions were made. The question that was to be determined was whether a Merit Promotee Reader or Professor in the service of the University could be treated at par with directly recruited Reader or Professor for the purposes of fixing inter-se seniority. The Supreme Court examined as to whether there was any provision in the Act dealing with promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme and in paragraph 38 of the judgment, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
Lal Mani vs The State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 December, 2023
"7. ... under the different Government Orders issued from time to time the teachers working in C.T. Grade become eligible to be considered for L.T. Grade as a personal pay scale. This does not mean the posting in L.T. Grade and the post which becomes vacant after the retirement of such a teacher would not be deemed to be a vacant post in L.T. Cadre nor such a person can take benefit on the post of the L.T. Grade for promotion and seniority as he is not holding the post in Grade in L.T. Grade vide Rashmi Srivastava v. University , Virendra Pandey v. State of U.P. 1994 (24) ALR (H) 19, Writ Petition No. 30754 of 1991 Madljuri Devi v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, decided on 20.3.1995 and Vipin Kumar v. District Inspectress of Schools 1993(2) Educational and Service Cases 456.
Gujarat University vs Mr. Patel on 29 July, 2004
The ratio, therefore, of Rashmi Srivastava's case (supra) will not apply."