Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.45 seconds)
G Anwar Basha, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 September, 2025 cites

K. Meghachandra Singh vs Ningam Siro on 19 November, 2019

11. The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent-High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued Order in ROC No.424/2021-B.Spl dated 07.09.2021 for fixing up of the common seniority among the District Judges who were appointed from the years 2010 to 2019 and invited objections. The petitioner submitted that his name figured at roster point No.372 and the names of respondents No.5 to 17 of W.P.No.2707 of 2022 were shown above to him at roster points 287 to 320. The petitioner filed objections to the provisional seniority list on 13.09.2021, inter alia submitting that the decision relied in K. Megha Chandra Singh (supra) by the 4th respondent/High Court of Andhra Pradesh for fixing the seniority was only prospective and the inter se seniority already fixed was protected by the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The 4th respondent/High Court of Andhra Pradesh further by Order ROC No.424/2021-B.Spl dated 05.01.2022 fixed the final common seniority list in RNT, J & MRK, J 11 WP Nos.1675 of 2022 & batch respect of the District Judges in which the name of the petitioner was at roster point No.142, below to the respondents 5 to 17.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 40 - H Roy - Full Document

Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. Etc., ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors., State Of Orissa & ... on 7 April, 1998

In our considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1156] and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Parmar & Ors on 27 November, 2012

v) The seniority list and the seniority position of the petitioners under 10% quota and 65% quota of recruitment by promotion, for the same recruitment year 2015 pursuant to the notification of the same date, was prepared at the time when N. R. Parmar's judgment (supra) was in operation. So, the said seniority list dated 04.02.2017 would be saved and protected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) which was made only prospective though overruling N. R. Parmar's judgment (supra), but specifically providing that K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) will not effect the inter se seniority already fixed based on N. R. Parmar's Judgment (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 242 - J S Khehar - Full Document

All India Judges Association vs Union Of India . on 19 May, 2023

In B. S. Jag Jeevan Kumar (supra) the erstwhile High Court explained that the only manner in which the ratio laid down in para-29 of All India Judges' Association v Union of India6 case and Rule 13 (a) of the Special Rules was to be understood was that, as and when a recruitment takes place, persons selected under a particular stream in that selection will be accommodated against the roster points earmarked for that particular stream in the 40 point roster. If all the 3 methods of recruitment take place almost simultaneously and if there are 40 vacancies, all roster points from point No.1 to 40 can get filled up. If the total number of persons appointed at a particular point of time from all the 3 different streams is greater than 40, then the Registry will have to fill up the first 40 roster points and complete the first cycle. Thereafter, the second cycle of the 40 point roster has to be commenced and the person at roster point No.1 in the second cycle will be at serial No.41. 6 (1992) 1 SCC 119 RNT, J & MRK, J
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 15 - P S Narasimha - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002

In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon its previous judgment in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla7 in which it was held that though the question of any estoppels by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seemed to be well settled that in the event a 7 (2002) 6 SCC 127 RNT, J & MRK, J 39 WP Nos.1675 of 2022 & batch candidate appears at the interview and participates in the process, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he could not turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair and there was some lacuna in the process. The proposition of law is well settled on which there can be no dispute, but the same cannot be applied in the preent dispute of seniority. The person whose seniority is going to be affected or while preparation of seniority list objections are invited and the objections are filed, it cannot be said by applying any principle that on rejection of the objection, such person cannot challenge such rejection or question the final seniority list.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 400 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next