Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 152 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing Suraj Parkash Gupta And Others vs State Of J & K And Others on 28 April, 2000

State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. Of ... vs Vikash Kumar Singh & Ors. on 24 July, 2020

In "Suraj Pratap Gupta and others Vs. State of Jammu Kashmir and others" the Government was carried away by sympathy for the promotees by not making direct recruitment after 1984 by restricting direct recruiters to 10 percent rather than permitting 20 percent and by deliberately promoting Chief Engineers to other 10 percent quota reserved for the direct recruiters and thus, the Government has acted in a biased manner and the consequent regularisation of the promotees held to be rightly quashed by the high court as they have illegally occupied the direct recruitment quota.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Sundeep Kumar Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 July, 2009

but there is no provision in the RRs for the fixation of inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees, therefore, the respondents are following well settled principle that both the categories are assigned seniority when they are born in the cadre. They have relied on the judgment of Suraj Prakash Gupta and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir decided on 28.4.2004 in Civil Appeal No.3034 to 3047/2007 wherein it was clarified that direct recruits cannot claim seniority from the date of vacancy in the quota before their selection. A direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. He cannot claim seniority from the date when he was not born in the service.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat & Ors vs State Of on 31 January, 2010

This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of as indicated above. Having no right to continue on the adhoc arrangement beyond a period of three months in terms of Rule 25 (4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 and the law laid-down in Suraj Parkash Gupta versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported as (2000) 7 SCC, 561, we do not find any sustainable reason justifying interference with the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge notwithstanding the fact that the appellants were not parties to respondent No.1s Writ Petition, for in view of the finalization of the Seniority List of Assistant 8 Scientific Officers, and the learned State counsels statement that the State Government was in the process of making substantive promotions against the posts of Scientific Officers considering all eligibles therefor including the parties to the Appeal, the appellants Appeal may not warrant consideration additionally because the appellants continuance on adhoc basis any more would be impermissible in view of the provisions of Rule 25 (4) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, and the directions already issued in LPASW No.98/2010, which take care of their right of consideration to substantive promotions as Scientific Officers as well.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.K. Khajuria vs State Of J And K And Ors. on 1 December, 2004

23. From a reading of the above rule it is clear that if substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre exists, a probationer may be appointed to the Service at the earliest possible opportunity and if such vacancy existed from an earlier date, he may be so appointed retrospectively from such date or from such subsequent date from which he was continuously on duty as member of the Service. In our opinion, the above rule too provides strength to the appellant's case. The following observations in Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), vide para 52, may usefully be quoted:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M S Radhamony vs The Secretary Department Of Posts ... on 25 February, 2020

In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in N.K.Chauhan's case which was reiterated in Suraj Parkash Gupta's case, there can be no doubt with respect to the position that a direct recruit could not claim ante dating the year of appointment to a date on which he was not borne in that service. There is yet another reason to dispel the contentions of the petitioners. Though they were given appointments as Postman/MTS only in the year 2013, they had not chosen to challenge the orders of appointment to the extent they were given such appointment only from 2013 and not from 2010, the year in which vacancies occur. None of them had approached any forum raising grievance regarding the delay in conducting LDC Examination. When the appointment as Postman/MTS of GDS is based on a competitive examination, in such circumstances, the delay in conducting the examination cannot be a reason to hold that the appointees ought to have been treated to have been appointed on the date of occurrence of vacancies as who could say with precision that they would have passed the competitive examination had it been conducted earlier. The position that in the case of promotion if administrative reasons alone caused the delay, it could not be permitted to be recoiled on the promotees cannot be applied in the case of direct recruits in the circumstances mentioned hereinbefore. It is to be noted that the petitioners in the said original petitions had not challenged their orders of appointments at any time after their appointments to the post of Postman/MTS. With open eyes they accepted the order of appointment and joined the post of Postman/MTS. Evidently, after joining the said post, they continued to function in that post for years together. In this context, it is to be noted that even now, no direct challenge has been made against the order of appointments to the aforesaid extent. Having failed to raise any challenge against the orders of appointment to the said extent at any point of time and accepted the appointment either as Postman or MTS, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any challenge against the orders of appointment indirectly to any extent, whatever be the purpose. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. At this distance of time, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance relating their appointment as Postman/MTS even if it is only for the limited purpose of getting antedated the appointment for 6 O.A No. 180/196/19 acquiring the prescribed length of regular service for appearing for the examination for promotion. In such circumstances, on appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners at any angle, we do not find any reason to hold that they are entitled to get their order of appointment antedated for the purpose of satisfying the eligibility criteria regarding the length of regular service for earning eligibility to appear in the examination for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant. We have already found that the Tribunal has rightly understood and applied the dictum of the Apex Court in Najithamol's case and in such circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in these original petitions carrying challenge against the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, these original petitions have to fail and accordingly, they are dismissed."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chathu K C vs D/O Post on 30 October, 2019

In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in N.K.Chauhan's case which was reiterated in Suraj Parkash Gupta's case, there can be no doubt with respect to the position that a direct recruit could not claim ante 10 dating the year of appointment to a date on which he was not borne in that service. There is yet another reason to dispel the contentions of the petitioners. Though they were given appointments as Postman/MTS only in the year 2013, they had not chosen to challenge the orders of appointment to the extent they were given such appointment only from 2013 and not from 2010, the year in which vacancies occur. None of them had approached any forum raising grievance regarding the delay in conducting LDC Examination. When the appointment as Postman/MTS of GDS is based on a competitive examination, in such circumstances, the delay in conducting the examination cannot be a reason to hold that the appointees ought to have been treated to have been appointed on the date of occurrence of vacancies as who could say with precision that they would have passed the competitive examination had it been conducted earlier. The position that in the case of promotion if administrative reasons alone caused the delay, it could not be permitted to be recoiled on the promotees cannot be applied in the case of direct recruits in the circumstances mentioned hereinbefore. It is to be noted that the petitioners in the said original petitions had not challenged their orders of appointments at any time after their appointments to the post of Postman/MTS. With open eyes they accepted the order of appointment and joined the post of Postman/MTS. Evidently, after joining the said post, they continued to function in that post for years together. In this context, it is to be noted that even now, no direct challenge has been made against the order of appointments to the aforesaid extent. Having failed to raise any challenge against the orders of appointment to the said extent at any point of time and accepted the appointment either as Postman or MTS, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any challenge against the orders of appointment indirectly to any extent, whatever be the purpose. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. At this distance of time, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance relating their appointment as Postman/MTS even if it is only for the limited purpose of getting antedated the appointment for acquiring the prescribed length of regular service for appearing for the examination for promotion. In such circumstances, on appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners at any angle, we do not find any reason to hold that they are entitled to get their order of appointment antedated for the purpose of satisfying the eligibility criteria regarding the length of regular service for earning eligibility to appear in the examination for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next