Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.77 seconds)
. Y. Anitha, vs The State Of Telangana., on 23 September, 2023 cites

State Of H.P. And Ors vs Raj Kumar Brijender Singh And Ors on 22 April, 2004

24. In the cases before this Court, the posts of School Assistants upgraded under G.O.Ms.No.17 and G.O.Ms.No.18, Finance (HRM-II) Department, both dt.03.02.2017 were intended to be filled up by promotion, but could not be filled up due to interim orders of this Court. The said G.Os., were withdrawn only vide G.O.Ms.No.110, Finance (HRM-II) Department, dt.05.10.2021 and restructured to be filled up as per the amended Rules vide G.O.Rt.No.03 dt.05.02.2021. Therefore, it is clear that the Government intended to fill up the vacancies of School Assistants including the upgraded posts of School Assistants (Languages) and School Assistants (Physical Education) and has arrived at the total number of vacancies in accordance with the Rules as provided in G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.26.01.2009 and has accordingly issued W.P.No.10061/2017 & batch (Total 14 Cases) 38 instructions to the respective DEOs for necessary action at their end. Therefore, it is clear that these vacancies were being considered for filling up and thus, the rules in force as on the date of issuance of the said G.Os. have to be considered as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others (2 supra). If the Government did not intend to fill up the vacancies, but the petitioners were seeking consideration of their cases for promotion to the vacancies in accordance with old Rules, the reliance of the learned Government Pleader on the above judgment would be relevant. But, since the vacancies were not filled up due to Court orders and not because the Government did not want to fill up the vacancies till the rules were amended, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the vacancies have to be filled up as per amended Rules cannot be accepted. In the cases before this Court, the Government initiated steps to fill up the vacancies and only after this Court pointed out that they would have to be filled up as per Rules in force and not without amending the Rules, they have resorted to amendment of Rules and withdrawal of the vacancies and rescheduling the panel and vacancies. This Court is of the opinion that by issuance of W.P.No.10061/2017 & batch (Total 14 Cases) 39 G.O.Ms.Nos.17 and 18 both dt.03.02.2017 by upgrading the posts of Language Pandits and Physical Education Teachers to the posts of School Assistants (Languages) and School Assistants (Physical Education), the vacancies so arising have to be filled up as per the unamended Rule 2 of the A.P. (Telangana) School Educational Subordinate Service Rules at the relevant point of time and thus, all the eligible candidates including the SGTs acquired a vested right which could not be altered or modified to the detriment of their rights by subsequent amendments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 121 - Full Document

?·?Pÿ?0?@?Y‹Ssƒ}Ø??ŒÂ???Fƒ>??„²???J\Vÿ?,?@?Yy‰Eð ... vs ‹E?È?Ûÿÿ Àug‹M?Gþë ... on 12 April, 2012

37.3 The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah's case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose, compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we have indiçated hereinabove. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold;
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 67 - Full Document
1   2 Next