Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 258 (1.81 seconds)
Documents citing Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003

P.Shanmugha Priya vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 11 March, 2014

17.In view of the fact that the impugned order of the 3rd Respondent in Memo No.2538/PSD-A1/1999 dated 01.06.2011 specifically refers to the fact that the Petitioner's seniority in the post of District Superintendent of Police (really speaking, it should be Deputy Superintendent of Police) in the Tamil Nadu Police Force included in Group I Services 1999  2000, was fixed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government in their letter dated 20.08.1998 of the Personnel and Administrative Department which was based on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.S. Ghalaut Vs. State of Haryana, (AIR 1996 SC 351) and as such, her request for seniority in the post of District Superintendent of Police (really speaking, it is Deputy Superintendent of Police) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service included in Group I 1999  2000 recruitment was inadmissible and could not be complied with, inasmuch as the selection was made with the Rules in existence then and this Court, taking note of a very vital fact of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar V. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2000 which overruled the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ghalaut Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 351, comes to an inevitable and resultant conclusion that the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent dated 01.06.2011 are clearly an invalid and illegal one, in the eye of law. Consequently, this Court interferes with the said impugned order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the 3rd Respondent and sets aside the same. Resultantly, the Writ Petition succeeds.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document

G.Selvakumaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 December, 2025

This list which was approved by the State Government, did not achieve finality and ultimately the seniority list came to be issued on 29.02.2004 and at that point in time, the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar Vs State of Haryana reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604 came into effect which reversed the earlier judgment in P.S.Ghalaut cited supra. The Hon'ble 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 12:03:34 pm ) W.P.Nos.6548, 6554 & 6593 of 2022 Supreme Court had held that the drawal of the seniority list should be on the merit list of selection and not as per roster point. When the orders of the Supreme Court has not been complied with, the contempt petitions have been filed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.638 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.4954 of 2016, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 01.10.2021 had directed the State to revise and publish the seniority list of the selectees who were selected in the selection process conducted in pursuance of the notification issued by the TNPSC dated 10.09.1999, strictly on the basis of merit determined by it in the selection process and not as per roster point. The State was directed to complete the said exercise within a period of 12 weeks. It appears that the impugned seniority list has been prepared pursuant to these directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Dr Shivakumar H R vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 16 March, 2026

In Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana ((2003) 5 SCC 604)), the principle enunciated is that seniority or eligibility cannot be claimed before entry into the service according to rules and that retrospective seniority cannot precede lawful appointment. It further deals with inter se seniority disputes, not statutory retrospective validation, as well as it does not deal with the use of two distinct terms in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. The meaning of continuous service and actual continuous service is not defined in this case. Hence, it may not negate in any way the case of the applicants. It is very different and distinct, the applicants before us are having both retrospective validation and having de-facto experience in equivalent posts which were certified equivalent under a related but distinct regulation called IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 so the four applicants before us have certainly a much better case. .
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajeev Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P & Ors on 11 March, 2020

Moreover, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered, in, a case titled as Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2003)5 SCC 604, is also rendered inapplicable, vis-a-vis, the factual matrix prevailing hereat, given, the reasons assigned hereinafter, rather making palpable disclosures, vis-a-vis, the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled, as, All India Judges' Association & Ors vs. Union of India, reported in (2002)4 SCC 247, hence, becoming acquiesced, to, be breached, (b) whereas, it constitutes the settled ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2020 20:23:29 :::HCHP 98 inflexible, and, inviolable norm(s), for, determining the contentious inter se seniority, amongst, all the competing incumbents. Re-emphasisingly, .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 2 - S Sharma - Full Document

Rajeev Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P & Ors on 11 March, 2020

Moreover, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered, in, a case titled as Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2003)5 SCC 604, is also rendered inapplicable, vis-a-vis, the factual matrix prevailing hereat, given, the reasons assigned hereinafter, rather making palpable disclosures, vis-a-vis, the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled, as, All India Judges' Association & Ors vs. Union of India, reported in (2002)4 SCC 247, hence, becoming acquiesced, to, be breached, (b) whereas, it constitutes the settled ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2020 20:23:40 :::HCHP 98 inflexible, and, inviolable norm(s), for, determining the contentious inter se seniority, amongst, all the competing incumbents. Re-emphasisingly, .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

A.P.Gnanaprakasam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 October, 2024

After the emergence of the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra), the fundamental principle relating to drawl of seniority list was that it should be based on merit list of selection and that the list drawn based on roster point can have no application for the purpose of seniority list.” Since the judgment of N.Santhosh Kumar's case [cited supra] was not complied with, the petitioner therein moved a contempt application. In the said Contempt Application, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to revise the seniority in accordance with the merits. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.04.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that, the cut off date for such exercise is the date of judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar's case [cited supra] and held that any revision in seniority should be in respect of the candidate, who was appointed subsequent to 10.03.2003.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.Santosh Kumar vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service ...

60. But the ratio laid down in P.S.Ghalaut by a two member Bench of the Supreme Court was held to be not a good law in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana [(2003) 5 SCC 604]. As seen from paragraph 13 of the decision in Bimlesh Tanwar, two contentions were raised before the High Court. The second was whether the seniority of the selectees had to be determined as per roster points or as per the order of merit. From paragraphs 33 to 37, the Supreme Court dealt with the aforesaid question. Paragraphs 33 to 37 of the decision in Bimlesh Tanwar read as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Susheelamma N vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 16 March, 2026

In Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana ((2003) 5 SCC 604)), the principle enunciated is that seniority or eligibility cannot be claimed before entry into the service according to rules and that retrospective seniority cannot precede lawful appointment. It further deals with inter se seniority disputes, not statutory retrospective validation, as well as it does not deal with the use of two distinct terms in the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations. The meaning of continuous service and actual continuous service is not defined in this case. Hence, it may not negate in any way the case of the applicants. It is very different and distinct, the applicants before us are having both retrospective validation and having de-facto experience in equivalent posts which were certified equivalent under a related but distinct regulation called IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997 so the four applicants before us have certainly a much better case. .
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next