Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
D.M. Nagesh And Ors. vs The Assistant Superintendent Of Post ... on 18 August, 2001 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Rameshwar Prasad on 9 March, 1982

In Kameshwar Prasad's case, supra, the Supreme Court held that the said rules are a complete Code governing the service, conduct and disciplinary proceedings against Extra Departmental Agents. It is common ground that the said rules governing the recruitment of Extra Departmental Agents do not provide for any weightage for the previous service, either provisional or stopgap service.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

J. Ranga Swamy vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 20 December, 1989

In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, , the Supreme Court held that prescription of qualifications and eligibility criteria for filling any post, are not matters for Courts to consider and assess; and if the Appropriate Authority empowered to prescribe the qualifications and eligibility criteria has done it in accordance with law, Courts will not interfere with the same. It was also observed that if any one has any grievance in regard to prescription of qualifications/eligibility criteria, the remedy is, give a representation for review of the rules and not to approach the Courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 1996

13.1 In Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, as against the sanctioned posts of 2,250 of Class III and IV posts under Tuberculosis Eradication Programme, as many as 6,000 persons were recruited and illegally appointed, without authority. It was not clear as to who among the 6,000 appointees were the senior most 2,250 persons, and who were appointed against the sanctioned posts and who were not appointed against sanctioned posts, so as to enable the termination of the services of only those who were appointed in excess of the sanctioned posts. Therefore, the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, terminated all the appointees. When that was challenged the Supreme Court upheld termination of all such appointees. However, since the Tuberculosis Eradication Programme was still to continue, the Supreme Court on humanitarian grounds directed that fresh recruitment to the sanctioned posts to be made at the earliest and all the affected persons whether or not parties to the case, be given opportunity to compete for the said posts and be given due weightage for their past experience. But as noted above, the facts in this case arc completely different. There the petitioners were regularly appointed but in excess of the sanctioned posts and they worked for a considerable period. On the peculiar circumstances, the Supreme Court directed weightage to be given on humanitarian grounds. That is not a precedent to hold that the Post and Telegraph Department should give weightage to the petitioner in violation of the PTEDA Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 698 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Arun Kumar Rout & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 November, 1997

13.2 The second decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioners, is Arun Kumar Rout and Ors. v. State of Bihar, which related to some daily wagers whose services had been regularised. Subsequently their services were terminated on the ground that their initial appointment was irregular. The employees concerned were not guilty of any fraud or sharp practice, nor did they lack the requisite qualification. They were already in service for more than 5 years. In those peculiar circumstances, the Supreme Court held that such employees deserve sympathetic consideration even if they could not claim regularisation and directed that while assessing their merit, they should be given credit of 25% marks for the experience they have gained for services rendered by them for a long period of 5 years of service. This decision again is inapplicable as the judgment itself makes it clear as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992

16. The fact that the said instruction cannot apply in the case of provisional appointees and substitutes, is also evident from the decision in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Piara Singh and Ors. The Supreme Court held that Courts should act with care and caution in issuing directions for regularisation and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such directions; that Courts should take a practical and pragmatic view, inasmuch as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but also has the effect of increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class or category. The Supreme Court gave several instances where regularisations should not be directed by Courts, two of which being relevant for own purpose are extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 1473 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs P. Ravinder & Ors on 13 August, 1991

In Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. P. Ravinder and Ors., 1991(5) SLR 90 : 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 112 the Supreme Court considered the validity of the order of the Tribunal extending the benefit of weightage to selection to all categories while the State had granted the benefit of weightage by notification to only one specific category was considered. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had acted illegally and exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the benefit beyond what was specified in the notification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - R B Misra - Full Document

B.N. Sinha vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 January, 1998

In B.N. Sinha v. Union of India, , the Supreme Court observed that the Courts and Tribunals should not attempt to legislate on a subject which was not its business; and neither the rule of statutory interpretation nor rules relating to interpretation of subordinate legislation, empower any judicial or quasi-judicial body to apply the law to a situation or object which was not completed by the legislature while making a law, or by the Government while making the rule.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1