Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.84 seconds)
P K Jayasimhan vs M/O Communication &Amp; Information ... on 29 October, 2018 cites

C. C. Padmanabhan & Others vs The Director Of Public Instructions And ... on 30 July, 1980

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Padmanabhan and Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions and Ors., 1980 (Suppl.) SCC 668=1981(1) SLJ 165 (SC), observed that 'Promotion' as understood in ordinary parlance and also as a term frequently used in cases involving service laws means that a person already holding a position would have a promotion if he is appointed to another post which satisfies either of the two conditions namely that the new post is in higher category of the same service or class.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 181 - A D Koshal - Full Document

Y.Najithamol & Ors vs Soumya S.D.& Ors on 12 August, 2016

Annexure R4 - True copy of DOPT OM dt. 16.5.2001. Annexure R5 - True copy of Rule 2 of Pat-I general of Appendix 37 Rules relating to Departmental Examination. Annexure R6 - True copy of interim order dt. 2.12.2015 in OP (CAT) NO. 194/2015. Annexure R7 - True copy of order dt. 14.11.2014 in OA 495/2013. Annexure R8 - True copy of order dated 12.8.2016 in CA No. 90 of 2015 in Y. Najithamol & others v. Soumya S.D. & others.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 104 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Suraj Parkash Gupta And Others vs State Of J & K And Others on 28 April, 2000

In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in N.K.Chauhan's case which was reiterated in Suraj Parkash Gupta's case, there can be no doubt with respect to the position that a direct recruit could not claim ante dating the year of appointment to a date on which he was not borne in that service. There is yet another reason to dispel the contentions of the petitioners. Though they were given appointments as Postman/MTS only in the year 2013, they had not chosen to challenge the orders of appointment to the extent they were given such appointment only from 2013 and not from 2010, the year in which vacancies occur. None of them had approached any forum raising grievance regarding the delay in conducting LDC Examination. When the appointment as Postman/MTS of GDS is based on a competitive examination, in such circumstances, the delay in conducting the examination cannot be a reason to hold that the appointees ought to have been treated to have been appointed on the date of occurrence of vacancies as who could say with precision that they would have passed the competitive examination had it been conducted earlier. The position that in the case of promotion if administrative reasons alone caused the delay, it could not be permitted to be recoiled on the promotees cannot be applied in the case of direct recruits in the circumstances mentioned hereinbefore. It is to be noted that the petitioners in the said original petitions had not challenged their orders of appointments at any time after their appointments to the post of Postman/MTS. With open eyes they accepted the order of appointment and joined the post of Postman/MTS. Evidently, after joining the said post, they continued to function in that post for years together. In this context, it is to be noted that even now, no direct challenge has been made against the order of appointments to the aforesaid extent. Having failed to raise any challenge against the orders of appointment to the said extent at any point of time and accepted the appointment either as Postman or MTS, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any challenge against the orders of appointment indirectly to any extent, whatever be the purpose. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. At this distance of time, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance relating their appointment as Postman/MTS even if it is only for the limited purpose of getting antedated the appointment for acquiring the prescribed length of regular service for appearing for the examination for promotion. In such circumstances, on appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners at any angle, we do not find any reason to hold that they are entitled to get their order of appointment antedated for the purpose of satisfying the eligibility criteria regarding the length of regular service for earning eligibility to appear in the examination for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 85 - M J Rao - Full Document

Vinodan T. & Ors vs University Of Calicut & Ors on 26 April, 2002

In the decision in T.N. Administrative Service Officers Assn. Union of India (2000) 5 SCC 728, the Apex Court considered such a question in a different context. The Apex Court held that even if vacancies exist, it is open to the authority concerned to decide how many appointments should be made. Simply because a candidate is eligible for selection, it did not confer on him any vested right for getting appointment. Virtually the said position was restated by the Apex Court in Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut (2002) 4 SCC 726. It is a well settled position in service jurisprudence that even if there is vacancy, the State is not bound to fill up vacancy and there is no corresponding right vested in an eligible employee to demand that such posts be filled up. This is because the decision to fill up a vacancy or not vests with an employer and for good reasons he could decide not to fill up such posts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 377 - R Pal - Full Document
1