Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Kerala vs Jacob M.V on 16 February, 2021 cites

Govt Of India Th:Secy & Anr vs Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr on 7 July, 2010

The legal aspect of the matter is that the said order made by the Tribunal is only on the basis of the conclusive declaration of law made by the Apex Court in Ravi Prakash's case supra. That apart, if the abovesaid perspective is duly taken note of by the Government and the case of the applicant is properly, lawfully and effectively considered in terms of Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR as aforementioned, then there may not be any necessity for the Government to identify backlog vacancies either from 2007 onwards (date of coming into force of the rank list) or for the previous period from the date of coming into force of the Central Act, viz 7.2.1996 onwards. Identifying backlog vacancies for the purpose of compliance of directions of the Tribunal as per Anx.A-11 and Ext.P-8 would arise only if the first O. P. (KAT) No. 449/2020 27 cardinal aspect was not available. However, we make it clear that if the Government still sticks on to hypertechnical stand that the case of the applicant cannot be considered in terms of Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR in view of abovesaid aspect, then certainly the Government will be obliged to consider the backlog vacancies from the year 2007 onwards, and find out whether if those vacancies were also reported and post was identified prior to the finalization of rank list, whether the applicant could have secured appointment etc. If the said basis for identification of backlog vacancies from 2007 onwards is also not sufficient, then certainly the Government may have to consider the effect of backlog vacancies in the cadre of CTO/STO from 7.2.1996 onwards. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the argument made by the Government regarding opening of floodgates if the directions of the Tribunal at Anx.A-11 and Ext.P-8 are complied with, appears to be specious and mainly imaginary ones. We are now apprised that the original applicant is now aged about 53 years. He has been waiting in the queue for a very long time and he has diligently prosecuted for the enforcement of his rights as can be seen from the previous rounds of litigation as per Anxs.A-8 & A-11 and Ext.P-8. The applicant has been repeatedly knocking on the doors of the governmental O. P. (KAT) No. 449/2020 28 authorities. We hope and trust that atleast now, the government authorities will rise up to the occasion and consider the case of the applicant with all compassion and taking into account the various aspects pointed out hereinabove, as well as the other aspects dealt with in Anx.A- 11 and Ext.P-8 orders of the Tribunal. So long as Anx.A-11 order has become final and conclusive, it is not open to the Government to say that the directions issued by the Government to consider the case of the applicant in terms of Rule 39 of Part II KS & SSR is liable to be interfered with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 115 - A Kabir - Full Document
1