Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (3.07 seconds)
Documents citing Chandra Gupta, I.F.S vs Secy., Govt. Of India on 12 September, 1994

M.L.Joseph Francis vs Sri.Thomas.P.Joseph on 20 July, 2007

As held by the Apex Court in Chandra Gupta v. Secretary, Government of India (1995) 1 SCC 23), where the promotion is to be ordered on the basis of merit, the incumbent cannot get automatic promotion on expunging the adverse remarks. In the result, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, quashing the retrospectivity given to the promotion of the appellant and the third respondent herein in upheld. But, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the High Court to issue fresh proceedings in the place of Ext.P6, granting promotion to the appellant and the 3rd respondent as Super-time Scale District Judges, prospectively from 09.11.2005 is vacated and the High Court is given liberty to re-evaluate the merits of the appellant and the third respondent, comparing the same with the merit of others in the field of choice and pass WA NOS.715/07 & connected cases 40 fresh orders as to with effect from which date, they can be given promotion. Needless to say, the promotion of the writ petitioners have become final long ago. The only modification permissible is the date of effect of their promotion and that too, for giving retrospective effect to the promotion of the appellant and the third respondent, if they are found eligible for promotion with retrospective effect, on evaluation of their confidential reports and comparing the same with that of the writ petitioners and others in the field of choice. Until such exercise is completed, the writ petitioners shall be treated as seniors to the appellant and the third respondent herein in the super time scale post.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Prem Chand Azad S/O Late Saheb Ram, Addl. ... vs The Hon'Ble Chief Justice, High Court Of ... on 19 October, 2006

In Chandra Gupta v. Secretary Government of India and Ors. (1995) SC 44; Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division and Anr. ; and State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher , while dealing with the issue of writing the A.C.Rs. the Apex Court observed that the superior officer, must show impartiality, objectivity and fair assessment without any prejudice whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility to inculcate in the officer's devotion to duty, honesty and integrity so as to improve excellence of the Government officer, lest the officer can be demoralized which would be deleterious to efficiency and efficacy of public servants.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

P. Sesham Raju vs Hon'Ble District And Sessions Judge And ... on 25 September, 1997

3. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that no such criteria or norms were adopted by the Selection Committee in the present case. He only rests his case on his seniority and his self-assessed merit. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was communicated any commendatory epistles about his performance or any special mentions were made about his achievements. To make ourselves doubly sure, we sought from the learned Counsel for the petitioner information about any special mention or notings in the service record of the petitioner which would prinia facie establish his merit and integrity. Obviously, the petitioner's Counsel could give information about the same only if such a mention or notings were intimated to him (see Chandra Gupta v. Secretary, Government of India, (D.N.).). But in his additional affidavit dated 24-9-1997, the petitioner referred to his confidential reports for the years 1993 to 1996, without explaining how he had access to them. He states that in his confidential reports pertaining to the years 1993 and 1994, it was recorded that his conduct and character were satisfactory and with regard to performance it was recorded as average. For the subsequent years 1995 and 1996, he states that it was recorded that he was fit for promotion. On this basis he contends that ignoring his case for promotion and promoting his juniors is discriminatory and hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B V Raju - Full Document

Society Of Auditors And Etc. vs Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... on 1 October, 1999

25.10. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammed Shujat All v. Union of India, as followed in Chandra Gupta, I.F.S. v. Secretary Govt. of India. , Mr. N. R. Chandran. learned senior counsel, contends that the right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, but the mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service. Quoting the above ratio, Mr. N. R. Chandran, learned senior counsel, argues that the petitioners get only a chance of allotment of work by being empanelled, and therefore, such chance of allotment of work by being on the panel or denial of work by not being on the panel, in any way, will not attract Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as the right to practice are not in any way curtailed and the mere inconvenience in the profession cannot be a ground for widening the scope of Article 19(1)(g).
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Sachin Mehrotra vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2022

40.That apart, it cannot be brushed aside that mere expunction of adverse entries, by itself, would not made the applicant more meritorious one. An employee cannot claim the benefit of such expunction unless and until he establishes that after expunction of adverse remarks he has a more meritorious record, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta V. Secretary to the Government of India [AIR 1995 SC 44].
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Ramesh vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited on 30 April, 2013

40.That apart, it cannot be brushed aside that mere expunction of adverse entries, by itself, would not made the applicant more meritorious one. An employee cannot claim the benefit of such expunction unless and until he establishes that after expunction of adverse remarks he has a more meritorious record, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta V. Secretary to the Government of India [AIR 1995 SC 44].
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 18 August, 2005

The aforesaid judgment was reversed by the larger Bench in Chandra Gupta v. Secretary, Government of India, observing that 'expunging the adverse remarks was a matter between the master and servant and no other person can be heard on the issue merely because his chances of future promotion etc, may be adversely affected if the adverse entry is expunged.
Allahabad High Court Cites 164 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Kamlesh Jha vs General Manager N C Rly on 14 May, 2018

"40. That apart, it cannot be brushed aside that mere expunction of adverse entries, by itself, would not made the applicant more meritorious one. An employee cannot claim the benefit of such expunction unless and until he establishes that after expunction of adverse remarks he has a more meritorious record, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Gupta V. Secretary to the Government of India [AIR 1995 SC 44].
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.S.S.Primary School vs The District Collector on 5 January, 2022

2. The petitioner school is a recognized private aided minority school, imparting education to students from standard I to V. The State Government extended Dr.M.G.R. Noon-Meal Scheme to the petitioner 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.14251 of 2020 School by sanctioning three posts, namely one organizer, one cook and one assistant to the Noon Meal Centre attached with the Schools.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document
1   2 Next