Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.52 seconds)Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. Etc., ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors., State Of Orissa & ... on 7 April, 1998
The learned counsel
referred to two other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court one is 1998
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
97
W.P.No.23342 of 2019 and
W.M.P.Nos.23087 & 22717 of 2019
4 SCC 456 in the case of Jagdish Ch.Patnaik and Ors Vs. State of
Orissa and Ors and the another one is 1999 9SCC 596 in the case of
Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. In both the decisions, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with peculiar factual aspects of those
cases and premised its decisions on that basis. The decisions as such
cannot be blindly or uncritically applied herein.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
79. According to the learned counsel that these petitioners who
were continued in service, were eventually granted the benefit of
regularization in accordance with the rules and therefore, in terms of the
above ruling, their services ought to be counted for all purposes. In that
case, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
considering the rules of Engineering Services in the State of Maharashtra
and also with reference to the application of quota rota rule as between
direct recruits and promotees. In that context, the judgment came to be
rendered. The ratio laid down in that judgment was that when the
appointment was made from two sources, the quota rota rule to be
followed. The reliance placed by the learned counsel based on the ruling
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, may not be valid, as the private
respondent promotees' services were retrospectively regularized not as
Assistants, but, as Junior Assistants. But, the consideration of this Court
is the effect of such regularization in the feeder grade and their
promotion in the next higher grade viz., the Assistant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
96
W.P.No.23342 of 2019 and
W.M.P.Nos.23087 & 22717 of 2019
V. Sreenivasa Reddy And Ors vs Govt. Of A.P. And Ors on 5 October, 1994
73. Apart from the rule position as explained above, the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
90
W.P.No.23342 of 2019 and
W.M.P.Nos.23087 & 22717 of 2019
laws cited on behalf of the parties needed to be examined. On behalf of
the petitioners, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of V.Sreenivasa Reddy and Ors Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors in
C.A.Nos.6575-6580 of 1994 dated 05.10.1994 was cited and the
operative portions of the ruling have also been extracted supra. The
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision are
pointedly relevant and crucial for settling the lis between the petitioners
and the private respondent promotees herein. The following observation
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment, is once again extracted
hereunder:
Delhi Water Supply And Sewage ... vs R.K. Kashyap And Or8 on 28 October, 1988
This principle has
been followed in innumerable cases and has been further
elaborated by this Court in several judgments including
those in Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. and others,
[1981] 1 SCR 449, and Delhi Water Supply and Sewage
Disposal Committee and others v. R.K. Kashyap and
others, [ 1989] Supp. 1 SCC 194, with which we are in
agree- ment.
State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. Etc vs E. Paripoornam And Ors on 19 August, 1991
26. Mr. C. Selvaraju, Learned Senior Counsel
for the contesting respondent invited our attention to the
decision in case of State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. E.
Paripoornam & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
420, which was the case pertaining to the seniority of
the teachers, who were appointed temporarily. Those
were also the teachers appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1)
of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services
Rules. Subsequently, they were regularized for the
limited purpose of increments. The order of
regularization itself denied their previous service for the
purpose of determining the seniority. This Court came
to the conclusion that while determining the seniority,
the Court could not count that service for the purpose of
seniority. In para 14, this Court observed:-
M.P. Palanisamy & Ors vs A. Krishnan & Ors on 15 May, 2009
76. On the same lines, yet another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has been referred in the case of M.P.Palanisamy
and Ors Vs. A.Krishnan and Ors in C.A.Nos.3582-84 of 2009 dated
15.05.2009. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the
case of inter se seniority between the direct recruit P.G.Assistants and the
promotee P.G.Assistants and in that context, held that all the
P.G.Assistants recruited through the Commission who are already in
service cannot be superseded by the P.G.Assistants appointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
93
W.P.No.23342 of 2019 and
W.M.P.Nos.23087 & 22717 of 2019
temporarily though earlier to direct recruits and regularized subsequently.
In fact, while concluding as such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
referred to an another judgment of its and its observation in paragraph
No.13, as under:
Ajit Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 2 November, 1999
“9.The inter se seniority between the directly
recruitd Assistants and the Assistants appointed by
promotion shall be as per the provisions laid down in
Rule 35(aa) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State
and Subordinate Services.”