Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)
Vijay Singh Deora vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 July, 1991 cites

State Of Gujarat vs C. G. Desai And Others on 13 November, 1973

5. It is contended by counsel for the Junior Engineers who are the appellants before us, relying on the decision we have earlier referred to, namely, The State of Gujarat v. C.G. Desai (supra) that if the date of up gradation is prior to the date of commencement of probation of the regular Junior Engineers, such upgraded Junior Engineers cannot be treated as seniors to the directly recruited Junior Engineers and promotions cannot be ordered on that footing. This grievance may be or may not be but it is impossible to hold that there is, anything arbitrary or violative of Article 14.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

He has further submitted that the clarification which has been issued by the Department of Personnel on 16.11.1989 is absolutely illegal, void and beyond the competence and its power. Department of Personnel is not the rule making authority and is not empowered to issue such circulars. The intention of the rule making authority in issuing the notification dated 7.12.1985 can be interpreted either by the rule making authority itself or by judicial review by the court. The State Government is empowered and competent to issue only executive instructions or orders to fill up the gap wherever, the rules are silent, as has been held in Sant Ram Shartna v. State of Rajasthan , but in the present case, there was no occasion as the rule is specific and clear. There is no ambiguity or any gap which could be filled by the State Government. The intention of the legislature was clear and unequivocal. The Department of Personnel cannot enlarge the scope of the statutory provisions by issuing administrative orders, instructions or clarifications. In the present case, it amounts to over-reaching the statutory rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 592 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Delhi Water Supply And Sewage ... vs R.K. Kashyap And Or8 on 28 October, 1988

10. The next point urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner is as to from which a person should be deemed to have been substantively appointed. According to the petitioner, if the appointment is not fortuitous and if the appointment is continued for sufficiently long period and if the appointment has further been regularised, he will be deemed to have been substantively holding the post from the date of his first appointment. The nature of the first appointment being temporary or ad hoc is not material and in support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on S.B. Patvardhan v. State of Maharashtra , Baleshwar Das v. Stale of U.P. , Narendra Chandha v. Union of India and Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Committee v. R.K. Kashyap .
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 47 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Rao Saheb Manilal Gangaram Sindore And ... vs Western India Theatres Ltd. And Ors. on 8 February, 1962

11. The other point submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is as to whether t he benefit of service in previous cadre can be given to a person who has subsequently joined another cadre and in this connection our attention has been drawn to Gangaram v. Union of India which has been relied and followed in State of Gujarat v. C.G. Desai wherein their lordships have held in para 16 under:
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 Next