Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.40 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. Etc., ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors., State Of Orissa & ... on 7 April, 1998
In our
considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in Jagdish Ch.
Patnaik [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456 : 1998 SCC
(L&S) 1156] and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter
se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012)
13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] .
K. Meghachandra Singh vs Ningam Siro on 19 November, 2019
11. The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent-High
Court of Andhra Pradesh issued Order in ROC No.424/2021-B.Spl dated
07.09.2021 for fixing up of the common seniority among the District Judges
who were appointed from the years 2010 to 2019 and invited objections. The
petitioner submitted that his name figured at roster point No.372 and the
names of respondents No.5 to 17 of W.P.No.2707 of 2022 were shown above to
him at roster points 287 to 320. The petitioner filed objections to the
provisional seniority list on 13.09.2021, inter alia submitting that the decision
relied in K. Megha Chandra Singh (supra) by the 4th respondent/High Court
of Andhra Pradesh for fixing the seniority was only prospective and the inter se
seniority already fixed was protected by the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court. The 4th respondent/High Court of Andhra Pradesh further by Order ROC
No.424/2021-B.Spl dated 05.01.2022 fixed the final common seniority list in
RNT, J & MRK, J
11 WP Nos.1675 of 2022 & batch
respect of the District Judges in which the name of the petitioner was at roster
point No.142, below to the respondents 5 to 17.
Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Parmar & Ors on 27 November, 2012
v) The seniority list and the seniority position of the petitioners under 10%
quota and 65% quota of recruitment by promotion, for the same
recruitment year 2015 pursuant to the notification of the same date, was
prepared at the time when N. R. Parmar's judgment (supra) was in
operation. So, the said seniority list dated 04.02.2017 would be saved
and protected in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.
Meghachandra Singh (supra) which was made only prospective
though overruling N. R. Parmar's judgment (supra), but specifically
providing that K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) will not effect the inter
se seniority already fixed based on N. R. Parmar's Judgment (supra).
Union Of India vs Alok Kumar on 16 April, 2010
57. Learned standing counsel for the High Court placed reliance in Alok
Kumar (supra) paragraphs 63 to 66, which read as under, to contend that to
notify the seniority list is the practice not in conflict with any rule.
Ranjan Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 April, 2014
In Ranjan Kumar (supra) upon which learned standing counsel for
the High Court placed reliance, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the petitioner
therein who had appeared for the examination without protest and filed petition
only after he realized that he would not succeed in the examination, such
petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court.
All India Judges Association vs Union Of India . on 19 May, 2023
In B. S. Jag Jeevan Kumar (supra) the erstwhile High Court
explained that the only manner in which the ratio laid down in para-29 of All
India Judges' Association v Union of India6 case and Rule 13 (a) of the
Special Rules was to be understood was that, as and when a recruitment takes
place, persons selected under a particular stream in that selection will be
accommodated against the roster points earmarked for that particular stream in
the 40 point roster. If all the 3 methods of recruitment take place almost
simultaneously and if there are 40 vacancies, all roster points from point No.1
to 40 can get filled up. If the total number of persons appointed at a particular
point of time from all the 3 different streams is greater than 40, then the
Registry will have to fill up the first 40 roster points and complete the first
cycle. Thereafter, the second cycle of the 40 point roster has to be commenced
and the person at roster point No.1 in the second cycle will be at serial No.41.
6
(1992) 1 SCC 119
RNT, J & MRK, J
Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002
In the
said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon its previous judgment in
Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla7 in which it was held that
though the question of any estoppels by conduct would not arise in the
contextual facts but the law seemed to be well settled that in the event a
7
(2002) 6 SCC 127
RNT, J & MRK, J
39 WP Nos.1675 of 2022 & batch
candidate appears at the interview and participates in the process, only
because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he could not turn
round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair and
there was some lacuna in the process. The proposition of law is well settled on
which there can be no dispute, but the same cannot be applied in the preent
dispute of seniority. The person whose seniority is going to be affected or
while preparation of seniority list objections are invited and the objections are
filed, it cannot be said by applying any principle that on rejection of the
objection, such person cannot challenge such rejection or question the final
seniority list.