Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)
Iqbal Singh vs General Manager, Northern Railway Etc on 5 April, 1974 cites

Shitla Sahai Srivastava vs General Manager, North Eastern Railway on 14 December, 1965

In Shitla Sahai Srivastava vs. General Manager, North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur. (4) the Court held that where in the panel prepared by the Selection Board, the word "provisional" is specifically noted against the name of a particular railway employee, he does not acquire a right to the post and the deletion of his name from the panel, therefore, does not attract the provisions of Article 311; if a civil servant has a right to a particular rank, then the very reduction from that rank will operate as a penalty, for he will then lose the emoluments and privileges of that rank; if, however he has no right to the particular rank, his reduction from an officiating higher rank to his substantive lower rank will not ordinarily be a punishment. It was further held that the expression "rank" in Article 311(2) has reference to a person's classification and not his particular place in the same cadre in the hierarchy of the service to which he belongs and, therefore, losing some places in the seniority list is not tantamount to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sham Sunder vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1968

In Sham Sunder vs. Union of India, (5) the facts were that a panel of 38 persons had been prepared as a result of a test as against 30 vacancies. The Railway Board which was the superior authority found that the vacancies were only 19 and so it reduced the panel from 38 to 24 persons only. The Court found that the amendment of the panel by a competent authority was valid and justified. In that case, the panel was however, not amended by removing the names of the topmost persons from the panel as in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 16 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Gurdev Singh Sidhu vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 1 April, 1964

In Gurdev Singh vs. The State of Punjab, (6) it was held that reversion from an officiating post on administrative grounds, namely the recall of the senior officers from leave or from deputation, did not amount to punishment if no posts had been left in the cadre to absorb them. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law contended which is well-established. Merely being placed on a panel may not confer a right of absorption and mere reversion from an officiating post may not be a ground of legal grievance by a Government employee. This would be so because absorption from the panel would depend upon the particular circumstances and availability of posts and nobody can claim an enforceable right in this respect. Again, officiating appointments are made for diverse reasons and for any valid administrative reason, an employee may have to be reverted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 124 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

The State Of Andhra vs Gaddam Venkatappayya on 8 December, 1960

(6) The meaning of the word "up to" given in Oxford Dictionary is "to be in a high or higher place" (for example the birds flew up to the eaves). The word "up to" would, according to the dictionary, mean "as high or as far as". In our opinion, the expression in the relevant rule is used in common parlance and is not intended to convey the meaning of not more than. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra vs. Venkatappayya. , (3) was construing rule 3 of the Madras Police Subordinate Service Rules and the expression "up to not more than 3 per cent of the cadre" occurring in It arose for construction. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held that the expression " up to" could be exceeded, while the Division Bench on appeal held that it could not be exceeded. The Supreme Court accepted the view of the Division Bench and observed that the learned Single Judge had not given any effect to the words "not more than" and that taken in conjunction with the .provision, it was clear that the words "up to not more than" merely fixed the maximum percentage of ranking the promotees in the category, leaving it to the appointing authorities to adopt any percentage below this figure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1