Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2000 cites

Chandramouleshwar Prasad vs Patna High Court & Ors on 7 October, 1969

So far as the contention of Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the direct recruits, is concerned, in praying for re- consideration of the judgment of this Court in Singlas case, the same also cannot be sustained inasmuch as the Court in Singlas case did consider the earlier decision of this Court in Chandramouleshwars case, and recorded a finding that in that case, it was only a matter of adjustment of seniority between the promotees inter-se and not between the promotees and direct recruits and, therefore, the ratio therein is of no application. Further, Justice Mukharji, in his concurring judgment did consider Joginder naths case and held that the principle evolved therein cannot be applied to the case in hand, where inter-se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits are going to be decided on equitable consideration. We are also unable to accept the contention of Mr. Subramanium that until the principle of quota provided in Rule 8 is made applicable to appointments under Rules 16 and 17, such appointees, under Rules 16 and 17 cannot claim continuous length of service for their seniority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 91 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1