Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.57 seconds)
Dr.K.Mohankumar vs Harikuttan Unnithan.C on 1 July, 2011 cites

Haryana State Warehousing Corp.& Ors vs Jagat Ram & Anr on 23 February, 2011

18. Another decision relied on by the counsel is Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and others v. Jagat Ram and another [(2011) 3 SCC 422]. In this case their Lordships held that in the case of seniority-cum-merit criterion what is required is a minimum necessary merit, but does not require comparative assessment of merit. Therefore, their Lordships held that the promotion given to a junior in preference to the senior is only on the ground that junior is more meritorious would violate seniority-cum-merit criterion. Their Lordships have held at paragraph 45 in detail what it would mean which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 47 - A Kabir - Full Document

Valsala Kumari Devi M vs Director, Higher Secondary Education & ... on 25 September, 2007

In view of the distinction between the appointment by promotion from General Education Subordinate Service and an appointment to the 75% vacancies ear-marked for direct recruitment, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the Director, Higher Secondary School, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala that seniority is not the criterion for 'appointment by promotion to HSST' is erroneous and is not in terms of the Government Orders referred to above. Though in the order, it is stated that the 5th WA No. 975 of 2011 and C.R.P. Nos. 138 & 139 of 2011 -:19:- respondent is more suitable than the appellant, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant,it has not been shown or indicated the reasons or grounds for arriving at such decision that the 5th respondent was found more suitable than the appellant for the post. We are also in agreement with the contention that the Director has mechanically accepted the decision of the Selection Committee that the 5th respondent is more suitable than the appellant without reference to selection for appointment by promotion to HSST against 25% quota earmarked for qualified High School Assistants. We are of the view that the Director has committed an illegality in upholding the selection of the 5th respondent for appointment to the post of HSST. Further the 5th respondent has been preferred to the appellant for the reason that his main subject in B.A. is History which is totally irrelevant for promotion to HSST from among HSAs. In G.O. dated 27.6.1990 the qualification prescribed is a second class Master's Degree in the concerned subject with B.Ed. It is relevant to point out that the appellant and the 5th respondent have obtained M.A. Degree from Mysore University and the 5th respondent took B.Ed with Social Studies. The other reason given by the Selection Committee for preferring 5th respondent is that he has proficiency in English, Kannada and Malayalam whereas the appellant has proficiency in English and Malayalam. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, once the requirement of the prescribed qualification is satisfied, the selection must be made on the basis of the seniority and suitability and there is no scope for making comparison of qualifications or comparative assessment of suitability. The expression 'suitability' means that a person to WA No. 975 of 2011 and C.R.P. Nos. 138 & 139 of 2011 -:20:- be appointed shall be legally eligible and 'eligible' should be taken to mean 'fit to be chosen'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan & Anr on 28 July, 2000

In the case of Union of India & others v. Lt.Gen.Rajendra Singh Kadyan and another [(2000) 6 SCC 698] the Hon'ble three judges of the Apex Court have in fact considered the service law with regard to promotion and criteria of a selection which fall into three categories; 1. seniority-cum-fitness, 2. seniority-cum-merit and 3. merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority. Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 in detail refer to these aspects, which read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 125 - Full Document
1   2 Next