Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Dhanraj Sharma And Anr. on 10 April, 1995 cites

K. Siva Reddy & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 24 February, 1988

In the matter of K. Siva Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. (Supra) the question which arose for consideration of the Apex Court was regarding determination of substantive vacancies in the cadre of Asst. Engineers. While interpreting Rule 3 of the A.P. (Roads and Buildings) Engineering Service Rules on the question of determination of seniority from the care of Asstt. Engineers, it was held by the Apex Court that there was no justification for the State Government to deprive the petitioners of the benefit of the scheme under the Rules and it should be made available to the direct recruits from the due date. It was further held by the Apex Court that when the State Government by the Rules prescribed the method of recruitment and had put the shame in operation, it had the obligation to comply with the same. The State Government was directed to ascertain the exact number of substantive vacancies available in the category of Asstt. Engineers in service. It was further directed that the seniority list in the cadre of Asstt. Engineers should be re-drawn as directed by the Tribunal by the relevant date keeping in view the directions of the Apext Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 41 - M Rangnath - Full Document

G.S. Lamba & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 1985

In this context it will be pertinent to mention the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of G.S. Lamba and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). The question which had arisen for consideration of the Apext Court was regarding the impugned seniority list which was challenged by the petitioners in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Since the quota Rule had not been adhered to in the matter concerning the appointment of direct recruits on the basis of competative examination held by the UPSC for indian Foreign Service Branch 'B', it was held by the Apex Court that regular promotions which were made in excess of quota and the seniority list drawn up by the department was vlolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution read with Indian Foreign Service Branch 'B' Rules, 1964 and that enormous departure from quota rule results in breaking down of the quota rule and in such situation the general rule of the length of continuous officiation would prevail. It was further observed that the burden was on the Govt. to show details of implementation of the quota. It was further observed by the Apext Court that in the absence of any valid principles of seniority it is well established that continous officiation in the cadre, grade or service will provide a valid principle of seniority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 111 - D A Desai - Full Document

Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990

21. Likewise in the matter of The Direct Recruits Class II Engineering Officer's Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) it was observed by the Apext Court that once an incumbent has been appointed to a post according to the Rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. It was further observed that if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till regularisation of service in accordance with the rules the period of officiating service will be counted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 915 - L M Sharma - Full Document

S.S. Moghe & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 May, 1981

25. keeping in view the facts of the aforesaid case and the proposition of law as laid down by the Apext Court in the aforesaid decision weare of the view that the said judgment of the Apext Court is distinguishable and not applicable to this case both, on facts as well as law, since the question with which we are primarily concerned in this case pertains to the determination vacancies for the earlier years, which have not been determined by the department even as on the date when the amended rules had come into force and that it was obligatory upon the department to determine the exact number of vacancies which were available in a particular year and then to determine the seniority of the candidates who had become eligible for promotion in accordance with the rules so that the seniority of the inservice candidates as well as the direct recruits is not disturbed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 23 - V B Eradi - Full Document
1