Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Adarsh Kumar Srivastav And 25 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 18 December, 2024 cites

A.P. Public Service Commission, ... vs B. Sarat Chandra & Ors on 10 April, 1990

In A.P. Public Service Commission Hyderabad (supra), the question of seniority was not involved, therefore, the said judgment also does not apply to the case at hand. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the date of order of substantive appointment is the basis for determining the seniority especially in view of Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 1991 and learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for not having interfered with the final seniority list dated 10.06.2016.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 253 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 8 July, 2008

So far as the judgment in Balwant Singh Narwal (Supra) is concerned, in the said case the selection was already over but appointment letter could not be issued which is not the case here. In the case at hand, the written examination was held but the result was not declared and the interview had not been held based thereon. The result was declared and interview was held only after completion of selection of contesting respondents and issuance of appointment letters to them, the fact situation in this case is different. Therefore, this decision also do not help the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 158 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

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

(17) Now, the contention of Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Petition No.301 (S/S) of 2018 was that issuance of Advertisement dated 31.12.2002 for filling up backlog vacancies was bad on facts and in law as for the vacancies to be backlog they must have been advertised earlier and remained unfilled, which was not the case, therefore, any selection and appointment made in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 31.12.2002 was dehors the law as such no benefit of seniority could accrue to such appointees i.e. the contesting respondents. He has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2023 AIR (SC) 5491 'Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.'; AIR 2013 SC 234 'Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors.'; 1991 AIR (SC) 284 'Keshav Chandra Joshi vs. Union of India'; (2011) 1 SLR 263 'State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Sangam Nath Pandey & Ors.'; (2012) 13 SCC 340 'Union of India & Ors. vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors' and decision of Allahabad High Court reported in 2016 (1) ADJ 391 'Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr' in support of his contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 242 - J S Khehar - Full Document

V.T. Khanzode & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 5 March, 1982

Learned Single Judge repelled the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (1990) 2 SCC 669 'A.P. Public Service Commission Hyderabad & Anr. vs. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors.'; (2008) 7 SCC 728 'Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.'; (1982) 2 SCC Page 7 'V.T. Khanzode and Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.' and (2016) SCC Online Delhi 2962 'Union of India and Ors. vs. Sandip Kumar Roy & Ors.' on the ground that the fact situation in the said cases was different.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 142 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. on 20 October, 2023

(17) Now, the contention of Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Petition No.301 (S/S) of 2018 was that issuance of Advertisement dated 31.12.2002 for filling up backlog vacancies was bad on facts and in law as for the vacancies to be backlog they must have been advertised earlier and remained unfilled, which was not the case, therefore, any selection and appointment made in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 31.12.2002 was dehors the law as such no benefit of seniority could accrue to such appointees i.e. the contesting respondents. He has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2023 AIR (SC) 5491 'Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.'; AIR 2013 SC 234 'Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors.'; 1991 AIR (SC) 284 'Keshav Chandra Joshi vs. Union of India'; (2011) 1 SLR 263 'State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Sangam Nath Pandey & Ors.'; (2012) 13 SCC 340 'Union of India & Ors. vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors' and decision of Allahabad High Court reported in 2016 (1) ADJ 391 'Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr' in support of his contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Sangam Nath Pandey & Ors on 15 December, 2010

(17) Now, the contention of Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Petition No.301 (S/S) of 2018 was that issuance of Advertisement dated 31.12.2002 for filling up backlog vacancies was bad on facts and in law as for the vacancies to be backlog they must have been advertised earlier and remained unfilled, which was not the case, therefore, any selection and appointment made in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 31.12.2002 was dehors the law as such no benefit of seniority could accrue to such appointees i.e. the contesting respondents. He has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2023 AIR (SC) 5491 'Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.'; AIR 2013 SC 234 'Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors.'; 1991 AIR (SC) 284 'Keshav Chandra Joshi vs. Union of India'; (2011) 1 SLR 263 'State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Sangam Nath Pandey & Ors.'; (2012) 13 SCC 340 'Union of India & Ors. vs. N.R. Parmar & Ors' and decision of Allahabad High Court reported in 2016 (1) ADJ 391 'Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr' in support of his contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 36 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Union Of India vs N.C. Murali . on 7 December, 2016

He has also noticed that judgment in the case of Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) had been followed by the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions reported in (2017) 13 SCC 575; 'Union Of India Vs. N.C. Murali'; (2014) 14 SCC 720 'State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava'; (2012) 13 SCC 340 'Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar'; (2013) 8 SCC 693 'P. Sudhakar Rao Vs. U. Govinda Rao and Ors.(350)'.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors vs Reevan Singh & Ors on 10 February, 2011

(19) As far as Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the other appeal is concerned, he relied upon decisions reported in (2014) 10 SCC 357 'Asis Kumar Samanta vs. State of U.P.'; (2008) 7 SCC 728 'Balwant Singh Narwal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.'; (1997) 1 SCC 111 'Dr. A.R. Sircar vs. State of U.P.'; (1990) 2 SCC 669 'A.P. Public Service Commission Hyderabad and Anr. vs. Sarat Chandra & Ors.' and (2011) 3 SCC 267 'Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. Reevan Singh & Ors.' to submit that the advertisement of the appellants being earlier in point of time and the selection having got delayed for no fault of his clients, they cannot be made to suffer, as such, equity demanded, especially in view of the aforesaid decisions that they be placed above those whose selection process was initiated subsequent to the advertisement of the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 161 - R M Lodha - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992

He has also noticed that judgment in the case of Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) had been followed by the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions reported in (2017) 13 SCC 575; 'Union Of India Vs. N.C. Murali'; (2014) 14 SCC 720 'State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava'; (2012) 13 SCC 340 'Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar'; (2013) 8 SCC 693 'P. Sudhakar Rao Vs. U. Govinda Rao and Ors.(350)'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 654 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors vs U. Govinda Rao & Ors on 3 July, 2013

Reliance placed upon decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.D. Lama (supra) is also misplaced as the said decision is also based on peculiar facts and the rule position applicable therein. The State Government held the selection contrary to the rules which resulted in delayed appointment, therefore, the observations made therein have to be read and understood in the context in which they have been made. The said decision also does not lay down any such principle of law or precedent which may be applicable to the case at hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 60 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1