Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N. Devasahayam vs State Of Madras, By Secretary, Home ... on 12 April, 1957
14. Further he cited Lachhman Dass v. Shivesh-warkar and Ors. and Narayan Hosabhayya Naick v. State of Mysore (by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) 1969--I L.L.J 651 for showing that transfer of an incumbent from one cadre to another cannot be challenged, and lastly, he referred to N. Devashayam v. State of Madras (vide supra) and Putia Gowda v. State of Mysore A.I.R. 1980 Mys. 244 for showing that the loss of seniority would not attract the principles of natural justice. The first group of cases relates to the question whether change of seniority in a cadre means reduction in rank of a Government servant within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. I have already observed that there is no question of reduction in rank of the petitioner in the present case. His whole case rests on two foundations:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The General Manager, Southern Railway vs Rangachari on 28 April, 1961
There is no gainsaying the fact that the question relating to the determination of seniority lies in the administrative sphere. There is also no manner of doubt that the mere change in the relative position of two persons in the same cadre would not result in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. But the pointed question is whether this would not affect the service conditions of an employee, and whether Article 16 of the Constitution would be attracted to such a cage. As has been held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari , Article 16 is not only attracted in the case of initial employment or appointment, but also applies to other matters relating' to employment including promotion and conditions of service pertaining to the office which one is holding. Their lordships interpreted the words "matter relating to employment or appointment" occurring in Article 16 of the Constitution in wider context.
Rao Manohar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 October, 1953
19. The learned Counsel for the respondents also argued that the writ petition was filed after a delay of ten months and, therefore, it should have been thrown away on the could of delay alone. He cited a number of cases and I do not consider it necessary to refer to them because so far as this Court is concerned, it has been held in Rao Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1952 R.L.W. 81 that if delay is explained, the Court can entertain the writ petition. There was delay of almost two years in the filing of the writ petition in that case. Even so that delay of about two years was not deemed a sufficient ground for refusing the writ, when the applicant was, during that period, strenuously trying to get the wrong remedied from the Government by making representations.
A. Sambandhan vs Regional Traffic Superintendent ... on 3 July, 1957
356; V. Devasahayam v. State of Madras ; A. Sambandhan v. Regional Traffic Superintendent, Southern Railway and Ors., Tiruchirappalli 1959--II L.L.J. 613; N. Devashayam v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1958 Mad.
Shitla Sahai Srivastava vs General Manager, North Eastern Railway on 14 December, 1965
The learned Counsel has cited a plethora of cases before me. He referred to S. G. Jai-singhani v. Union of India ; Shitla Sahai Srivastava v. General Manager, North-eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 1966--11 L.L.J.755; Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Mysore v. Raghavendrachar (S) 1967--1 L.L.J. 401; High Court of Calcutta v. Amal Kumar Roy ; Vidhya Sagar v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudershan Deo A.I.R. 1963 All.
Divisional Personnel Officer, Souther ... vs S.Raghavendrachar on 16 December, 1965
The learned Counsel has cited a plethora of cases before me. He referred to S. G. Jai-singhani v. Union of India ; Shitla Sahai Srivastava v. General Manager, North-eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 1966--11 L.L.J.755; Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Mysore v. Raghavendrachar (S) 1967--1 L.L.J. 401; High Court of Calcutta v. Amal Kumar Roy ; Vidhya Sagar v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudershan Deo A.I.R. 1963 All.