Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.85 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal & Ors on 17 February, 1997
State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal & Ors. [(1997) 10 SCC 419]
is a case wherein this Court held that the mere fact that a person was
empanelled for promotion does not entitle him for valid appointment if by the time
the vacancies for his appointment actually arose, the eligibility criteria was
altered by the amendment to the rules, emphasizing the position that the
preparation of the panel alone does not freeze the criteria to be satisfied in
respect of the subsequent vacancies arising thereafter, so as to dispense with
the need to satisfy the requirements of rules, which came into force thereafter by
way of amendment. Those observations cannot be drawn out of their context to
be extended to the case on hand which should be guided by the fact that the
amendments in this case never had any effect of rendering ineligible an already
eligible person. A mere enlargement of the area or zone of consideration by
enabling some more category of posts also to be considered for promotion, if at
all could be claimed to have merely affected chances of promotion only and not
either right to be considered for promotion or deprive any vested or accrued
rights, in law.
S.B. Mathur And Others vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Of Delhi High ... on 31 August, 1988
The grievance sought to be made as to the equation of posts for purposes
of further avenues of promotion or the right and powers of the State to do so
also, does not merit our acceptance, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case as well, besides the relevant principles of law governing the same. This
Court in S. B. Mathur's case (supra) observed as follows:-
R.S. Ajara & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 3 March, 1997
It is appropriate at this stage to make reference to some of the decisions
relied upon by the learned counsel on either side. Y.V. Rangaiah & Ors., etc.
Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. [(1983) 3 SCC 284] being a case where not only
there was omission to prepare the promotion panel in time as per rules then in
force but the amended rules dispensed with the original provision for considering
LDCs along with UDCs for promotion, adversely affecting their promotional
prospects, has no application to the case on hand. The decision in R.S. Ajara &
Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(1997) 3 SCC 641] lays down that the benefit
that has accrued or crystallized under the existing rules cannot be taken away by
an amendment with retrospective effect.
Union Of India & Ors vs N.Y. Apte & Ors on 4 August, 1998
In Union of India & Ors. Vs. N.Y. Apte & Ors. [(1998) 6 SCC 741], this
court observed that the matter of equation of posts is entirely within the domain
of the rule-making authority and unless the rule is shown to be wholly
unreasonable and irrational, the Court will not interfere with the same.
Md. Usman & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 April, 1971
In Md.
Usman & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [(1971) 2 SCC 188], this
Court, while repelling a challenge based on equality clause, observed as
hereunder:-
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors on 8 September, 1981
In State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs.
Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors. [(1981) 4 SCC 130], this Court observed
that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service, and the fact that
there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change
in the conditions of service while reiterating the settled principle that a right to be
considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere reduction in chances of
promotion are not.
Chairman, Railway Board And Ors vs C.R. Rangadhamaiah And Ors. Etc. Etc on 25 July, 1997
In Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.
Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 623], a Constitution Bench of
this Court held that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of
those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retrospectivity as
being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but a rule which
seeks to reverse from an anterior date, a benefit which has been granted or
availed, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of
Articles 14 and 16 to the extent it operates retrospectively. This observation
came to be made in the context of a challenge to the notification, which, by the
language employed therein, applied to the detriment of the pensionary rights of
those who had already retired and no longer in service and deprived the retired
persons of their entitlement to be reckoned as on the date of retirement, when
they acquired a right to a particular pension, as per rules in force on the date of
their retirement.
1