Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.39 seconds)
Patanjali Sharma vs The Union Of India on 29 May, 2014 cites

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr .... ... vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma ....Respond on 4 December, 2006

(i) In State of Uttaranchal Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma reported in 2006 (13) SCALE 246 the issue was whether the respondent has the right to claim promotion and seniority from 1995-96 when the vacancy arose or whether seniority will be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment which is 1999, it can be observed that an employee will be considered member of a cadre from the date of his/her substantive appointment in the cadre after selection. Similarly it was held that even a person appointed on promotion shall not get seniority of any earlier year but shall get the seniority of the year in which his/her appointment is made. Therefore, in the present fact situation the respondent cannot claim promotion from the date of occurrence of the vacancy which is 1995-96 but can only get promotion and seniority from the time he has been substantively appointed i.e. from 1999. Likewise, the seniority also will be counted against the promotion/appointment in the cadre from the date of issuance of order of substantive appointment in the said cadre, i.e. from 19.11.1999.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 208 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

K. Thulaseedharan vs The Kerala State Public Service ... on 30 April, 2007

In the instant case before us also, the UPSC has never even been requested by the official respondents-Ministry of Defence and CSD to keep alive the 1995 Select Panel, and, therefore, as held by the Honble Apex Court in K. Thulaseedharan vs. Kerala State Public Service Commission, Trivandrum (supra), neither the Government nor the Public Service Commission had any power to revive a dead list, and all that the UPSC could have done is to keep the Select List alive for a further period, if such a decision had been taken on a day when that Select List was still alive, and had not yet expired, i.e. before 25.04.1996.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 32 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971

Thus, the issue regarding appointment of Private Respondent, with a delay of a decade, from a Select Panel which had lapsed 9 years back, would also be hit by the observations of the Honble Apex Court in R.N. Nanjundappa vs. Thimmiah (supra), in which it was held that if the appointment itself is in infraction of the Rules, it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, as an illegality, which cannot be regularized.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 732 - A N Ray - Full Document

N.K. Chauhan & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 1 November, 1976

5. This Court has examined the question of fixation of seniority inter se between officers appointed from different sources i.e. by promotion and by process of direct recruitment. It is almost settled that while determining the inter se seniority amongst officer recruited from different sources or between officers appointed by the same process at different times, the date of entering in the service is relevant. A person who enters in the service first shall rank senior unless there is some Rule providing otherwise which can be held to be consistent with Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of N. K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1977 SC 251, Paramjit Singh v. Ram Rakha Mal, AIR 1983 SC 314 A. Janardhana v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769, A.N. Pathak v. to the Govt. Ministry of Defence, AIR 1987 SC 716.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 142 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Surendra Narain Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 April, 1998

9. There is no dispute about these general principles. But the question here is in regard to seniority of the respondents 4 to 16 selected on 1.10.1993 against certain vacancies of 1992-93 who were not appointed due to litigation, and those who were selected against subsequent vacancies. All others from the same merit list declared on 1.10.1993 were appointed on 2.6.1994. Considering a similar situation, this Court, in Surender Narayan vs. State of Bihar - 1998 (5) SCC 246, held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 508 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983

30. The applicant of this OA is a selectee of the year 2001, and had joined the Respondent Department on 20.11.2001, and his seniority was correctly reflected thereafter in the Seniority Lists as on 01.01.2003, 01.01.2004 and 01.01.2005. He had placed reliance on the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 06.06.1978 (Annexure A-4 of this OA) to submit that if a person is offered appointment on the recommendation of the UPSC, he has to join the service within the stipulated period mentioned in the offer of appointment, and if he does not join within the stipulated period, the offer lapses, and if he is allowed to join even after the stipulated period, in exceptional circumstances, he would be ranked below who had joined earlier. The applicant of this OA has also assailed the impugned order dated 22.05.2009, whereby the Private Respondent had been offered an appointment in the year 2005, and had been appointed w.e.f. 10.10.2005, although more than 10 years had elapsed since the UPSC had communicated the select panel dated 25.04.1995, but he had thereafter mainly questioned only the assignment of seniority to the Private Respondent with respect to the panel of 1995, by which he had moved above, and jumped over 13 persons in the Seniority List, including the applicant of this OA. In a similarly worded OA, he had also assailed the delayed offer of appointment issued to the Private Respondents, without the panel having been renewed, and had thus in a manner challenged the appointment itself, and even the grounds raised were also accordingly framed, in which he had relied upon the ratio of the Honble Apex Court judgments in A. Janardhana v. Union of India (supra), A.N. Pathak vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence (supra) and S.P. Gupta vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra). But, while framing his prayer clause, the applicant of this OA had also confined his prayers only to the aspect of seniority, by praying as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 238 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next