Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.89 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983
Indeed such a result had
happened in A. Janardhana's case (supra).
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mervyn Coutindo & Ors vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay & Ors on 14 February, 1966
There is
another aspect of the matter. Rule 16 permits making
additional appointments. Before the actual situation, where
Rule 7 and Rule 8(2) can be adjusted is dealt with, it would
be relevant to note some of the decisions cited at the Bar
though, most of these are not relevant. On the wording of
rule 7 read in conjunction with rule 8(2) one is on virgin
ground
In the case of Mervyn Coutinho & Ors v. Collector of
Customs Bombay & Ors., this Court noted that there was no
inherent vice in the principle of f fixing seniority by the
rotation in a case where a service is composed of fixed
proportion of direct recruits and promotions (emphasis
supplied). There as indicated by the emphasis supplied that
the rule proceeded on different basis than the present one.
In
387
the instant case in view of the specific and clear language
of proviso to rule 7 read with rule 8 it cannot be said that
recruitment to the service was "in fixed proportion". In
that view of the matter, the observations of this Court in
the said decision would dot throw much light in resolving
the present controversy.
Bishan Sarup Gupta Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 April, 1974
The case of Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
also deals with quota rule in connection with Income-tax
officers. In view of the present rules in the instant case,
it is also not necessary to deal with the said decision.
Baleshwar Dass & Ors. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors. Etc on 19 August, 1980
Our attention was drawn to several decisions but most
of them turn of their own facts. For example, the promotees
placed great reliance on the decision in Baleshwar Dass v.
State of U.P.(2) In that
376
case, there was only one rule of recruitment to both the
permanent and temporary posts in the cadre. Besides, no
rotation of vacancies was prescribed for the purpose of
fixing seniority. The position which arises in the case
before us did not therefore arise in that case. However, the
observations made by Krishna Iyer, J. in that case are not
without relevance for the present purpose. The learned judge
observed :
Joginder Nath And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 October, 1974
The rules nisi are made absolute. Current gradation
list of the Judicial Department of the Delhi Administration
specially with reference to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 is
quashed with a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3
prepare the gradation list of the Delhi Higher Judicial
Service on the basis of the principles indicated in this
judgment. This, however, will not in any way prejudice the
claim of seniority of respondent No. 4, Shri G.S. Dakha on
the ground of his being member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. This direction will also not in any way
affect the seniority of the promotee officers of the Delhi
Higher Judicial Service amongst themselves. That position
would be guided by the principles laid down by this Court in
Joginder Nath and Ors.' case (supra) (indicated
hereinbefore).
Chandramouleshwar Prasad vs Patna High Court & Ors on 7 October, 1969
In the light of this, it is not
necessary to deal with the observations made by this Court
in the context of the said rules,
In the case of Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High
Court & Ors. this Court was concerned with a situation and
rules entirely different from the terminology of proviso to
rule 7 of the present rules. It, is therefore, also not
necessary to persue the said decision any further.