Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.79 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
All India Reserve Bank Employees ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 23 April, 1965
These observations of the National Tribunal were ap-
proved by Hidayatullah, J., as he then was, speaking on
behalf of this Court in All India Bank Employees Association
v. Reserve Bank of India(1) at page 57.
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 1961
Then we come to the question of the rule of seniority
adopted by the Combined Seniority Scheme. Now there can be
no doubt that it is open to the State to lay down any rule
which it thinks appropriate for determining seniority in
service and it is not competent to the Court to strike down
such rule on the ground that in its opinion another rule
would have been better or more appropriate. The only en-
quiry which the Court can make is whether the rule laid down
by the State is arbitrary and irrational so that it results
in inequality of opportunity amongst employees belonging to
the same class. Now, here, employees from non-clerical
cadres were being absorbed in the clerical cadre and, there-
fore, a rule for determining their seniority vis-a-vis
(1) A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1139.
Anand Parkash Saksena vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 December, 1967
Anand Parkash Saksena v. Union of India.(1)
The last contention of the petitioners was that seniori-
ty is a civil right and the State cannot interfere with it
to the prejudice of an employee without giving an opportuni-
ty to him to be heard and since the Combined Seniority
Scheme adversely affected the seniority of the petitioners
in the clerical cadre without giving them an opportunity to
represent against it, it was void and inoperative. There
are two answers to this contention and each is, in our
opinion, fatal. In the first place, we do not find from the
judgment of the High Court that this contention was at any
time advanced before the High Court and, in the circum-
stance.s, we do not think it would be fight to permit it to
be raised for the first time before this Court. Secondly,
even if this contention were allowed to be raised, we do not
think it can be sustained. Here, there was no question of
any existing seniority being disturbed by change in the rule
of seniority. The problem was of fitting into the clerical
cadre employees coming from non-clerical cadres and for that
purpose, a new rule was required to be made which would
determine the seniority of these new entrants vis-a-vis
those already in the clerical cadre.
1