Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.69 seconds)Mohan Lal And Anr. And Raghbir Singh vs Delhi Administration on 23 September, 1969
5. It may be relevant to submit here that the aforesaid un-amended Rule was further amended vide Notification No.F.13/21/2002/Home (P) Estt/2201-04 dated 07.05.2003, pursuant to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in OA No.1159/99 Mukesh Tyagi & Anr. V. Lt. Governor, Delhi, decided on 09.05.2001 and another decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Mohan Lal v. Delhi Administration (OA No.1046/88), which decision was based upon the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (AIR 1990 SC 1607), whereby this Tribunal has held that seniority list based on the date of confirmation is untenable. This led to amendment in the 1980 rules and the words till the seniority is finally settled by confirmation were deleted from the un-amended Rules. At this stage it will be useful to quote the amended Rule 22, as notified vide Notification dated 7.5.2003, which thus reads:
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
5. It may be relevant to submit here that the aforesaid un-amended Rule was further amended vide Notification No.F.13/21/2002/Home (P) Estt/2201-04 dated 07.05.2003, pursuant to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in OA No.1159/99 Mukesh Tyagi & Anr. V. Lt. Governor, Delhi, decided on 09.05.2001 and another decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Mohan Lal v. Delhi Administration (OA No.1046/88), which decision was based upon the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (AIR 1990 SC 1607), whereby this Tribunal has held that seniority list based on the date of confirmation is untenable. This led to amendment in the 1980 rules and the words till the seniority is finally settled by confirmation were deleted from the un-amended Rules. At this stage it will be useful to quote the amended Rule 22, as notified vide Notification dated 7.5.2003, which thus reads:
Ramesh Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 November, 1977
14. As can be seen from the recommendation made by the National Police Commission, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above, it is clear that the guiding factor/basis for imparting training and awarding marks to the SI (Executive) is that the Sub Inspectors of Police occupies the most important functional position in the Police hierarchy/ organization and deals in law and order situation, matters relating to crimes and comes in continuous contact with the public and occupies first level of supervision and control over his subordinate officials, thus must be involved in a thorough training not only on legal side of work but also in the practical side like scientific aid, skills, adequate knowledge and forensic science etc. The applicants have failed to show how the SI (Ex.) associated with the duties of preventive, detective and regulatory control and discharge of the functions of law enforcement, investigation of crime etc. and those S.I. who perform other duties than dealing with law and order problem and dealing with public can be described as similarly circumstanced, thus offending the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Suffice it to say that discrimination is the essence of classification and does violate the constitutional guarantee of equality only if it rests on an unreasonable basis. In order to establish that protection of the equal opportunity clause has been denied to them, it is not enough for the applicants to say that they have been treated differently from others, not even enough that a differential treatment has been accorded to them in comparison with other similarly situated. The guarantee of equality does not imply that the same rules should be made applicable to all persons in spite of differences in their circumstances and conditions. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1978 SC 327, where the Apex Court has held as under:
State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967
10. The following observations made in State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao (AIR 1968 SC 349) (supra) will also amply repay perusal (at p. 351):
P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002
17. As regards the challenge to the excessive marks prescribed for training, as already stated above, we are of the view that the purpose of the training is laudable one and satisfies the test of reasonable classification and also falls within the realm of policy decision. If the rule-making authority or the Government has decided that professional training should be given much weightage than the marks obtained in SSC Examination, the rule/provision cannot be quashed on that ground. At this stage, we wish to reproduce the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632, wherein in para-10 the Court has made the following observations:
Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors vs Reevan Singh & Ors on 10 February, 2011
This aspect has also been noticed by this Tribunal in S.I. Sharat Kohlis case (supra). Further the executive instruction cannot override the provisions of statutory rules, unless it is shown that statutory rule has offended some provisions of the Constitution or the Rule is discriminatory or arbitrary. That being so, the executive instruction has to give way to the statutory rules and where the statutory rules prescribe that seniority has to be determined in a particular way, in that eventuality seniority has to be determined as prescribed under the rules and date of joining on the post is irrelevant. That is what the Apex Court has also held in the case of Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh and others, 2011 (1) SLJ 454.
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Surya Prakash Tyagi vs Lt.Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 6 May, 2009
5. It may be relevant to submit here that the aforesaid un-amended Rule was further amended vide Notification No.F.13/21/2002/Home (P) Estt/2201-04 dated 07.05.2003, pursuant to the decision rendered by this Tribunal in OA No.1159/99 Mukesh Tyagi & Anr. V. Lt. Governor, Delhi, decided on 09.05.2001 and another decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Mohan Lal v. Delhi Administration (OA No.1046/88), which decision was based upon the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II Engg. Officers Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (AIR 1990 SC 1607), whereby this Tribunal has held that seniority list based on the date of confirmation is untenable. This led to amendment in the 1980 rules and the words till the seniority is finally settled by confirmation were deleted from the un-amended Rules. At this stage it will be useful to quote the amended Rule 22, as notified vide Notification dated 7.5.2003, which thus reads:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1