Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.45 seconds)
Dr. S. Palanivelu And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 April, 2007 cites

Union Of India & Anr.Dr. P.P.C. Ravani & ... vs Dr. Akhilesh Chandra Agrawaldr. ... on 27 February, 1998

29. Thus there is a special di stinction made in the nature of supernumerary posts created by virtue of Hon'ble Apex Court order dated 29.10.1991 vis-a-vis supernumerary posts generally created in Govt. Departments in that, these supernumerary posts created because of 29.10.1991 order, have to be implemented in such a way that respondents do not disturb the rest of the provisions of 29.10.1991 orders viz. the promotion of regular doctors in the existing vacancies by harmonious reading of the order in its entirety and holistic implementation in toto. Therefore, the respondents will have to realise the deviation they are making from the road map given by Hon'ble Apex Court upholding equity between the two contending groups of regular and regularised doctors, when they claim that they are not in wrong by posting regularised doctors in regular existing vacancy, such as the one they had done by appointing respondent No. 3 in the existing vacancy as Additional Director, CGHS, Chennai because the said decision of the respondents has directly affected the promotion prospect of regular doctors in their line in the existing vacancies. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court order of 29.10.1991, the regularised doctors and regular doctors have to get the benefit of promotion in their own line, based on their respectiveseniority lists and the regularised doctors posting after promotion to a supernumerary post, in the existing vacancy, being an impediment for the promotion prospects of regular doctors as discussed supra, also to be noticed as affecting the promotion prospects of the regularised doctors too in view of the formula ordered by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 29.10.1991. Looking at the issue herein as one of 'posting and transfer' and not one of promotion is clearly an aspect of ostrich approach of ignoring its ramifications on 'promotion' in the lightof the Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 29.10.1991 on the promotion of regular doctors as also that of the regularised doctors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Dr. P.P.C. Rawani And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 October, 1991

9. The respondents have filed separate reply, more or less on the same lines in the 3 O.As., denying the averments made in the O.As. They had also traced the background of recruitment of Group 'A' and 'B' officers directly through UPSC and on adhoc basis respectively. According to them, the status of the doctors appointed onadhoc basis (Group 'B', commonly known as regularised doctors) was finally settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in their order dated 29.10.1991 in Dr. P.P.C. Rawani and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said order directed the Govt. to regularise the appellants regularised doctors) in Group 'A' Post of the Central Health Service, maintain separate seniority list of these officers, create supernumerary posts and promote these officers on the basis of the seniority list of these officers against the supernumerary posts at par with promotional avenues available to those appointed through UPSC. The Apex Court also clarified that no promotion will be given to any of the appellants in the existing vacancies which will go only to the regularly appointed officers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

D.K. Reddy And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 May, 1995

8. From the narration of the facts, it is evident that the appellants, who are to be considered as regularised doctors, have consistently succeeded before this Court at every stage in establishing their seniority. As noticed above, this Court while giving directions in unmistakable terms has stated that the regularised doctors will take their seniority on and from 1.1.1973 or the date of their first initial appointment in the service (though as ad hoc Group 'B' doctors), whichever is later. In view of this direction read with directions 2 and 3 (supra), which was arrived at after a prolonged discussion, the view taken by the Tribunal that the impugned letter dated 17.10.1993 was in violation of the directions given by this Court is totally uncalled for. Likewise, the view taken by the Tribunal that those appointed in the supernumerary posts cannot claim the administrative powers as that will go only with regular posts is also wrong. The Tribunal treated supernumerary posts as different one from the regular posts. This view of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of a decision of this Court in D.K. Reddy and Anr. v. UOI and Ors. . This Court while considering a similar question repelled an argument similar to the view taken by the Tribunal by observing as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1