Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)K Ajit Babu And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 25 July, 1997
27. The applicants in OA No.1751/2014, 20/2014 and 1753/2014,
relying on K. Ajit Babu (supra), have sought alternative relief that the
OAs may be referred to the Full Bench for reviewing the order dated
17.11.2011 in OA No.139/2010 and allow the applicants to be
impleaded in that OA as respondents. We have considered this prayer
of the applicants. The order dated 17.11.2011 categorically states that
this Tribunal refrained from quashing the appointment of Sh. Manoj
Kumar as he was not impleaded as party in OA No.139/2010. The
Tribunal directed the respondents to correct their admitted mistake by
following due process of law. The respondents have now proceeded by
giving them SCNs and opportunity to present their case. Four out of
five such persons are before this Tribunal in the OAs mentioned in
this order. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that by not impleading
Sh. Manoj Kumar Jha or any other candidate in OA No.139/2010 who
are proposed to be reverted now, their rights have been prejudiced or
denied natural justice. The alternative prayer of the applicants
therefore cannot be accepted.
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974
In P.S.Sadasivaswamy (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court took
a view that "a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over
his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the
most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of
29 OA-4550/2013 with OA-20/2014,
OA-1751/2014 and OA-1753/2014
limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is
it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a
matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a
sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to
exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of
persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand
by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put
forward stale claims and try to unsettle matters."
Dirctor General Of Posts & Ors vs K.Chandrashekar Rao on 13 December, 2012
28. On the issue that the respondent-department cannot cancel the
appointment after so many years on the ground of some discrepancy
at the time of preparation of final select list, the applicant has tried to
draw support from K.Chandrasekhar Rao (supra). The Hon'ble
28 OA-4550/2013 with OA-20/2014,
OA-1751/2014 and OA-1753/2014
Supreme Court had taken a view that considering that the intention
behind compassionate appointments under the scheme was to provide
relief to the family members of deceased persons, and thus on the
yardstick of social justice, such relief cannot be withdrawn on the
ground of some alleged discrepancy which has not been supported by
any data, is unreasonable and therefore, even unsustainable.
Union Of India & Anr vs Narendra Singh on 13 December, 2007
In Narendra Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
as follows:
1