Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.32 seconds)
Kumud Ranjan And Anr., Etc. Etc. vs Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank And Ors. on 20 June, 2001 cites

B. V. Sivaiah & Ors vs K. Addanki Babu & Ors on 17 July, 1998

This judgment, in our opinion, does not make a departure from the law laid down by this Court in the earlier judgments explaining the criterion of "seniority-cum-merit" because in this case, the selection had been made by-taking into account the seniority as well as performance and performance was appraised by assigning marks on the basis of performance appraisal and interview. Those who secured 85 marks out of 150 marks were short-listed for promotion, which shows that securing 85 marks out of 150 marks was treated as the minimum standard of merit for purposes of promotion and those who satisfied the said minimum standard were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 217 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

In Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the Supreme Court observed that principle of seniority ensures absolute objectivity by requiring all promotions to be' made entirely on the ground of seniority and that if a post falls vacant it is filled by the person who has served the longest in the post immediately below. But the trouble with the seniority system is that it is so objective that it fails to take any account of personal merit. It is fair to every official except the best ones; an official has nothing to win or lose provided he does not actually become so inefficient that disciplinary action has to be taken against him. The Court expressed the view that there should be correct balance between seniority and merit in a proper promotion-policy. The criterion of seniority-cum-merit' and 'merit-cum-seniority' which takes into account seniority as well as merit seems to achieve such a balance. While the principle of 'merit-cum-seniority' lays greater emphasis on merit or ability-seniority playing less significant role - to be given weight only when merit or ability are approximately equal, the criterion of seniority-cum-merit has greater emphasis on seniority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 592 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

D.P. Singh Alias Dina Nath Prasad Singh ... vs Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank And Ors. on 20 November, 1991

(1) Service records - 30 marks (2) Performance - 30 marks (3) Interview - 40 marks The Full Bench decision, 2000(1) PLJR 251, arose from the decisions of the learned Single Judge in DP. Singh's case. That was a case of promotion to the post of Area Manager/Senior Manager, the provisions in respect of which are contained in para 7 of the Second Schedule to the 1988 Rules and similar to those with respect to the post of Officer/Branch Manager contained in para 6 quoted above. The impugned decision of the Selection Committee was held to be based on the comparative assessment of merit and not in accordance with the principle of seniority-cum-merit i.e. in accordance with the guidelines/circulars dated 31-12-84. The Full Bench observed:
Patna High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank And Ors. vs D.P. Singh And Ors. on 4 November, 1999

In the cases of D.P. Singh v. Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank 1992(1) PLJR 409, Shyam Bihari Pandey v. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank 1997(1) PLJR 93, and Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. D.P. Singh 2000(1) PLJR 251, promotions had been made on the basis of more or less similar criteria and inter se allocation of marks which were not approved by this Court. In the case of D.P. Singh the allocation of marks was as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1   2 Next