Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
WP(C)/3021/2021 on 29 June, 2022 cites

Bal Kishan vs Delhi Administration And Anr. on 6 October, 1989

Not only that in the final gradation list of Executive Engineer dated 14.10.2014 the last ranked officer is Shri Binoy Kumar Bora at Sl. No. 131. His position in the gradation list of Assistant Executive Engineer was at Sl. No. 71. This shows that officers in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer from Sl.No. 72 to 317 barring the reserve category candidates are yet to be promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer. The Apex Court in the case of Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi Administration and another reported in 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 351 held that no junior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any deviation from this principle will have demoralizing effect in service apart from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Petitioner could not show that his seniors in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer were not suitable for promotion when he was promoted to Executive Engineer. He also could not show that they were considered before being superceded by the petitioner. Petitioner's promotion to Executive Engineer was therefore ex- facie illegal and had to be corrected. There is a distinction between a judicial approach and the approach by an administrative authority while considering delay in matters of seniority and promotion. Test applied in judicial proceeding is very strict in as much as in a judicial proceeding there is assertion of one's right and adjudication based thereon. Therefore, before entertaining such challenge the Court looks into various aspects, such as, delay and laches as belated interference by the Court may upset settled positions as because of the delay interest of third parties may get ripened. Such belated interference may also lead to administrative dislocation causing serious complication. Therefore, belated challenge or stale claims to seniority and promotion are ordinarily not entertained by the Courts. But that is not the case here. Firstly, without any Court intervention, in view of the indisputable facts leading to only one possible conclusion, the State decided to review the promotions of the petitioner and accordingly, Review Selection Board was constituted which has recommended reversion of the petitioner. Secondly, reversion of the petitioner to the ex cadre post of Executive Engineer will not cause any administrative complication or dislocation. Rather, it will only restore some sanity and orderliness in the Department, thereby removing the grievance of a large number of engineers".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 32 - K J Shetty - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

In the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, the Apex Court has held that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 12 November, 2009

In the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others vs. State of Orissa and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471, the Apex Court has cited the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. State Of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317, which considered the effect of delay in challenging a promotion and the seniority list, wherein the Constitution Bench held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected, inasmuch as, it seeks to disturb the vested rights of others regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. The Apex Court in the above noted case held that a party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, wherein it observed that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of delay or laches is that the rights which have accrued by the reason of delay in filing a writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 218 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973

In the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others vs. State of Orissa and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471, the Apex Court has cited the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. State Of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317, which considered the effect of delay in challenging a promotion and the seniority list, wherein the Constitution Bench held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected, inasmuch as, it seeks to disturb the vested rights of others regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. The Apex Court in the above noted case held that a party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, wherein it observed that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of delay or laches is that the rights which have accrued by the reason of delay in filing a writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 254 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Dipajit Das And 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 19 June, 2020

19. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.04.2021 was issued, wherein a decision has been taken to exclude the name of the petitioner from the final inter-se- seniority list of E.E. (Civil), PWD and also to retrospectively abolish the ex-cadre post of E.E., created solely for the petitioner, in pursuant to the judgment dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10662/2018, "Ajit Kumar Bhuyan & Ors. (supra). The impugned order also reverted the petitioner to the cadre of A.E.E. and to re-fixed his inter-se-seniority in the grade of A.E.E. (Civil), in parity with the other incumbents of the said cadre, on the basis of the inter-se-seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil), notified vide Government Notification dated 31.05.2002, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.164.
Gauhati High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - N K Singh - Full Document

The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Kripa Shankar Singh on 27 February, 2020

The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Kripalu Shankar & Others, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 34 held that the functioning of Government in a State is Governed by Article 166 of the Constitution, which lays down that there shall be a Council of ministers with the Chief Minister at the head, to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except where he is required to exercise his functions under the Constitution, in his discretion.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1