Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.52 seconds)
Chhabilal Divya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2022 cites

Harnarayan Yadav vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 1 July, 2019

26. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.215/2017 (Harnarayan Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and another), decided on 7-1-2019, has clearly held that Shiksha Karmi is not the holder of civil post under the State and once they are not holding civil post under the State, their past services on the post of Shiksha Karmi cannot be considered as teaching experience in the Department of School Education. Otherwise, if that contention is accepted that their past service on the post of Shiksha Karmi, later-on renamed as Lecturer (Panchayat) is to be considered for computing teaching experience of 5 years, the necessary corollary would mean that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Principal immediately on the date of absorption to the post of Lecturer with effect from 1-7-2018, irrespective of the fact that they have never held the civil post under the State and the Rules of 2019 came into force with effect from 5-3-2019 and the employer of the petitioners now, the State Government, did not have any opportunity to observe the performance of the petitioners viz., ability, capability, calibre and suitability on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) and thereby, the very purpose of prescribing five years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer which is the feeder cadre would be defeated and that would not be in consonance with the Rules of 2019. Thus, the employer / State Government would be completely denude of its authority and forced to consider and promote the petitioners without adjudging their ability, capability, calibre and suitability, as, as on today, the petitioners do not have five years experience on the post of Lecturer (LB).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Scientific Advisor To Raksha Mantri & ... vs V. M. Joseph on 14 January, 1998

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 142 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Smt. Asha Keshavrao Bhosale vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 October, 1985

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 36 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Dwijen Chandra Sarkar & Ord vs Union Of India And Anr on 15 December, 1998

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 138 - M J Rao - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Sharma, J.K. Sharma & Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another on 10 April, 2001

In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph's case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat's case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and / or distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 329 - Full Document

Ramchandra Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2015

In that view of the matter, the decisions of the M.P. High Court in Hemchandra Pandey (Dr.) (supra), Chhogalal (supra), K.M. Mishra's case (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in Deepak Sood's case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, are also clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present W.P.(S)No.4341/2020 and other connected cases Page 31 of 32 case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babulal Dewangan 11 Cra/1241/2000 The ... on 16 January, 2018

6. Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(S)Nos.4341/2020 & 1472/2021, would submit that the petitioners W.P.(S)No.4341/2020 and other connected cases Page 12 of 32 have filed these writ petitions for consideration of their services rendered as Lecturer (Panchayat) for the purposes of promotion only, as the service period rendered as Lecturer (Panchayat) has been considered for calculating contributory pension and other benefits which is nowhere expressly said to be excluded by the Rules of 2019 and it cannot be ignored by the State. It has also been submitted by Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel, that by virtue of Rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, the person who is working on transfer or deputation in another department and if he is absorbed later, his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption in his parent department, then his regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account while fixing his seniority in the present department. Since the Panchayat Department with whom the petitioners were earlier working and the School Education Department where subsequently they have been absorbed are two wings of the State Government, therefore, the services rendered by the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I prior to their absorption cannot be ignored for counting 5 years service on the post of Lecturer (LB). He would further submit that absorption of the petitioners was not choice, but a compulsory one rendering all the posts of Teachers of Panchayat and Urban Administration as dying cadre. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of A.P. State Electricity Board and others v. R. Parthasarathi and others1, Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and another v. V.M. Joseph 2, Renu Mullick 1 (1998) 9 SCC 425 2 (1998) 5 SCC 305 W.P.(S)No.4341/2020 and other connected cases Page 13 of 32 (Smt) v. Union of India and another 3, Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another v. Union of India and others4, Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and another5, Union of India and another v. V.N. Bhat 6 and also upon the decisions of the M.P. High Court in the matters of Hemchandra Pandey (Dr.) and others v. State of M.P. and others 7, Chhogalal s/o Gattuji Solanki v. State of M.P. and others 8 and State of M.P. v. K.M. Mishra and others9 in support of his contention.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1663 - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Harnam Singh & Ors on 17 January, 1997

27. The petitioners without any protest or demur accepted the policy dated 30-6-2018 and got themselves absorbed with effect from 1-7-2018 and thereafter, the Rules of 2019 came into force on 5-3-2019 and they are being governed by the Rules of 2019 without questioning the Rules of 2019. As on today, as per S.No.9 of Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019, in order to get promotion on the post of Principal, minimum five years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer is sine qua non, which the petitioners have admittedly not completed as on this date, as they have become Lecturers only with effect from 1-7-2018 and as such, they cannot be considered for promotion on the post of Principal. {See Harnam Singh's case (supra) and Indu Shekhar Singh (supra).}
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 35 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next