Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.37 seconds)
P.Shanmugha Priya vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 11 March, 2014 cites

Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003

17.In view of the fact that the impugned order of the 3rd Respondent in Memo No.2538/PSD-A1/1999 dated 01.06.2011 specifically refers to the fact that the Petitioner's seniority in the post of District Superintendent of Police (really speaking, it should be Deputy Superintendent of Police) in the Tamil Nadu Police Force included in Group I Services 1999  2000, was fixed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government in their letter dated 20.08.1998 of the Personnel and Administrative Department which was based on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.S. Ghalaut Vs. State of Haryana, (AIR 1996 SC 351) and as such, her request for seniority in the post of District Superintendent of Police (really speaking, it is Deputy Superintendent of Police) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service included in Group I 1999  2000 recruitment was inadmissible and could not be complied with, inasmuch as the selection was made with the Rules in existence then and this Court, taking note of a very vital fact of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh Tanwar V. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2000 which overruled the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Ghalaut Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 351, comes to an inevitable and resultant conclusion that the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent dated 01.06.2011 are clearly an invalid and illegal one, in the eye of law. Consequently, this Court interferes with the said impugned order dated 01.06.2011 passed by the 3rd Respondent and sets aside the same. Resultantly, the Writ Petition succeeds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - S B Sinha - Full Document

P.S Ghalaut vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 1995

"6.In any event since the counter also supports the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has secured higher marks than respondents 4, 5 and 6 and only on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 351, the petitioner was fitted in roster against 93rd turn, in view of subsequent judgment in AIR 2003 SC 2000 which have over ruled the P.S.Ghalaut's case, the petitioner having admittedly more meritorious than the Respondents No.4, 5 & 6, this Court, by taking note of the fact of the said seniority having not been finalised, directs the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 2000 by placing him above the Respondents 4, 5 & 6 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 30 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985

23.Learned counsel for the respondent - TNPSC placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in ASHOK KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF HARYANA ((1985) 4 SCC 417) and contended that any interference with seniority list would upset large number of appointments already made. The contention of the learned counsel for TNPSC cannot be countenance. By re-fixing the seniority of the petitioner as per the marks secured by him, it would only affect the seniority of respondents 7 and 16, who were the B.C. Candidates. The seniority of other candidates would not in any manner be affected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 998 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank vs Ananda Chandra Das on 12 September, 1994

"49.In this case also, although there does not exist any statutory rule but the practice of determining inter se seniority on the basis of the merit list has been evolved on interpretation of the Rules. A select list is prepared keeping in view the respective merit of the candidates. Not only appointments are required to be made on the basis of such merit list, seniority is also to be determined on that basis as it expected that the candidates should be joining their respective posts almost at the same time. Yet again in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank & Anr. v. Ananda Chandra Das & Ors. (1994 (6) SCC 301) this Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 45 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Dr. Rashmi Srivastava vs Vikram University & Ors on 20 April, 1995

14.It is to be noted that 'Seniority' is normally determined among those in the same cadre. Further, the list must also be confined to those who belong to that cadre i.e. if the cadre consists of direct recruits only, then the list must reflect the direct recruits only and not others as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Rashmi Srivastava V. Vikram University and others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1694.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 54 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Union Of India vs H.R. Patankar & Ors on 14 August, 1984

Added further, a 'Gradation List' is prepared in accordance with the principle of seniority laid down either statutorily or by executive instructions or rules and normally, the validity of such a list is required to be judged with reference to such principles of seniority as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. H.R.Patankar, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1587.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 34 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next