Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.75 seconds)Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs R. Santhakumar Velusamy & Ors on 6 September, 2011
[2024:RJ-JP:26399] (10 of 23) [CW-15692/2023]
4.6 That in support of the foregoing arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy
and Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510, B. Thirumal vs.
Anand Sivakumar and Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 593,
Debabrata Dash and Ors. vs. Jatindra Prasad Das and Ors.
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 658, Ganga Vishan Gujarati and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2019) 16
SCC 28 and State of Jharkhand vs. Bhadey Munda and Ors.
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 398.
B.Thirumal vs Ananda Sivakumar & Ors on 27 November, 2013
[2024:RJ-JP:26399] (10 of 23) [CW-15692/2023]
4.6 That in support of the foregoing arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy
and Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510, B. Thirumal vs.
Anand Sivakumar and Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 593,
Debabrata Dash and Ors. vs. Jatindra Prasad Das and Ors.
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 658, Ganga Vishan Gujarati and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2019) 16
SCC 28 and State of Jharkhand vs. Bhadey Munda and Ors.
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 398.
Debabrata Dash & Anr vs Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors on 11 March, 2013
[2024:RJ-JP:26399] (10 of 23) [CW-15692/2023]
4.6 That in support of the foregoing arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy
and Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510, B. Thirumal vs.
Anand Sivakumar and Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 593,
Debabrata Dash and Ors. vs. Jatindra Prasad Das and Ors.
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 658, Ganga Vishan Gujarati and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2019) 16
SCC 28 and State of Jharkhand vs. Bhadey Munda and Ors.
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 398.
Ganga Vishan Gujrati & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 9 May, 2018
[2024:RJ-JP:26399] (10 of 23) [CW-15692/2023]
4.6 That in support of the foregoing arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy
and Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510, B. Thirumal vs.
Anand Sivakumar and Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 593,
Debabrata Dash and Ors. vs. Jatindra Prasad Das and Ors.
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 658, Ganga Vishan Gujarati and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2019) 16
SCC 28 and State of Jharkhand vs. Bhadey Munda and Ors.
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 398.
State Of Jharkhand vs Bhadey Munda on 10 September, 2014
[2024:RJ-JP:26399] (10 of 23) [CW-15692/2023]
4.6 That in support of the foregoing arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. R. Santhakumari Velusamy
and Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 510, B. Thirumal vs.
Anand Sivakumar and Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 593,
Debabrata Dash and Ors. vs. Jatindra Prasad Das and Ors.
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 658, Ganga Vishan Gujarati and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2019) 16
SCC 28 and State of Jharkhand vs. Bhadey Munda and Ors.
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 398.
Prakash Chand Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Sho on 9 October, 2018
22. Therefore, in cumulative consideration of the fact that
the private respondents before this Court were allowed promotion
on the post of Assistant Engineer Diploma Holder (Civil) against
the vacancy year 2008-2009 on 17.06.2008, in pursuance of the
DPC recommendation dated 10.06.2008; that the financial
approval for the 621 posts of Junior Engineers which were
upgraded to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was already
sanctioned by the Finance Department on 19.03.2007 itself; that
as per the specific Promotion Guidelines dated 04.06.2008, issued
in order to resolve the facets of promotion on account of the
creation/upgradation of such posts, more particularly Clause 6.1,
7.5 and 7.5.2, it is noted that it is an undisputed fact that the
private respondents were granted promotion on the post of
Assistant Engineers against the vacancy year 2008-2009 vide
order dated 17.06.2008, and as per Clause 6.1, the determination
of the vacancies is made on the 1 st of April of the said year i.e.
01.04.2008; that Rule 24-11A of the Rules of 1954 provides for
the determination of experience of the services for promotion,
from the vacancy year as opposed to the actual date of promotion
and therefore, as the vacancy year qua the private respondents
promotion was 2008-2009, the date for computing experience
shall be taken as 01.04.2008; that the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Prakash Chand Meena (Supra) whilst placing reliance
(Downloaded on 02/09/2024 at 09:07:12 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26399] (23 of 23) [CW-15692/2023]
upon Rule 24-11A of the Rules of1954 held that the incumbents
were entitled to get the period of experience calculated from the
year when they were due for promotion, as opposed to the actual
date of promotion on the higher post; that similarly in M.L. Jain
(Supra), this Court held that for an employee promoted against
the vacancy year 1991-1992, shall be eligible for getting his
experience computed from 01.04.1991; that taking note of the
fact that the private respondents were promoted against the
vacancy year 2008-2009, their experience for promotion on the
post of Executive Engineer shall be computed from 01.04.2008, as
per which they shall possess due experience of 15 years as on
01.04.2023 to be promoted on the post of Executive Engineer, this
Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition.
Satish Kumar &Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 22 February, 2010
2. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions
warrant adjudication on common questions of law, with the
consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties,
the petitions are co-jointly taken up for final disposal, by way of a
common order. It is clarified that for the purpose of recording
arguments, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15692/2023 titled as
Satish Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., is
taken as the lead file.
Bahadur Mal Jain vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 2 April, 2013
22. Therefore, in cumulative consideration of the fact that
the private respondents before this Court were allowed promotion
on the post of Assistant Engineer Diploma Holder (Civil) against
the vacancy year 2008-2009 on 17.06.2008, in pursuance of the
DPC recommendation dated 10.06.2008; that the financial
approval for the 621 posts of Junior Engineers which were
upgraded to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was already
sanctioned by the Finance Department on 19.03.2007 itself; that
as per the specific Promotion Guidelines dated 04.06.2008, issued
in order to resolve the facets of promotion on account of the
creation/upgradation of such posts, more particularly Clause 6.1,
7.5 and 7.5.2, it is noted that it is an undisputed fact that the
private respondents were granted promotion on the post of
Assistant Engineers against the vacancy year 2008-2009 vide
order dated 17.06.2008, and as per Clause 6.1, the determination
of the vacancies is made on the 1 st of April of the said year i.e.
01.04.2008; that Rule 24-11A of the Rules of 1954 provides for
the determination of experience of the services for promotion,
from the vacancy year as opposed to the actual date of promotion
and therefore, as the vacancy year qua the private respondents
promotion was 2008-2009, the date for computing experience
shall be taken as 01.04.2008; that the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Prakash Chand Meena (Supra) whilst placing reliance
(Downloaded on 02/09/2024 at 09:07:12 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:26399] (23 of 23) [CW-15692/2023]
upon Rule 24-11A of the Rules of1954 held that the incumbents
were entitled to get the period of experience calculated from the
year when they were due for promotion, as opposed to the actual
date of promotion on the higher post; that similarly in M.L. Jain
(Supra), this Court held that for an employee promoted against
the vacancy year 1991-1992, shall be eligible for getting his
experience computed from 01.04.1991; that taking note of the
fact that the private respondents were promoted against the
vacancy year 2008-2009, their experience for promotion on the
post of Executive Engineer shall be computed from 01.04.2008, as
per which they shall possess due experience of 15 years as on
01.04.2023 to be promoted on the post of Executive Engineer, this
Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition.
Jai Narayan Meena vs State (Animal Husbandry )Ors on 8 April, 2013
"The only question which is to be determined is
whether though promotion on selection scale has been
granted for the year 1991-92, the period should be
counted from 1.4.92 or 1.4.92. It is not disputed that
1991-92 year stats from 1.4.91 and ends on 31.3.92.
In the present case, if the petitioner has been
promoted even according to the respondents on
1.4.91, his experience is bound to be counted from
1.4.91 and not from 1992. The contention of the
respondents in this regard cannot be accepted. To
substantiate his arguments that for counting
experience the period is to start from 1.4.91, the
petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court passed
in Jai Narayan Meena V. State of Rajasthan and
Others, 1994(3) WLC 534 wherein it was held
that Jai Narayan Meena who was allotted the year
1987-88 was deemed to have been regularly selected
one of them would have fulfilled the experience as
required in that case. In yet another order passed by
this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1052/98
decided on 18.1.99, it was held as under:-
1