Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Sushil Kumar Singh & Ors on 30 July, 2015
Although in obedience of the judgment of the writ Court, the
commission announced the result of the limited competitive
examination vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition on 24.6.2014 but the
process was not completed as the results were not being given effect
to by the respondent State. This forced the aggrieved petitioners to
move this Court in contempt jurisdiction and when a notification was
issued bearing No. 15528 dated 27.10.2015 promoting 99 Assistants
inclusive of the petitioners to the post of Section Officers which
promotion was made subject to the pending Special Leave Petition
arising from S.L.P.(Civil)No. 25699-25701/2015 (State of Bihar Vs.
Dharambir Prasad and Ors.) and S.L.P. (Civil) No. 29770 of 2015
(State of Bihar Vs. Sushil Kumar Singh and Ors.).
Bihar Secretariat Service Act, 2007
Section 15 in Bihar Secretariat Service Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in Bihar Secretariat Service Act, 2007 [Entire Act]
M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006
The substance of arguments advanced on behalf of the State is
that since the State Government had in the light of the judgment and
order of the Supreme Court passed in the case of M. Nagaraj and
Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. since reported in (2006) 8SCC
2012 had decided to extend the benefit of reservation with
consequential seniority to the reserved category candidates in the
matter of promotion also vide resolution No.11635 dated 21.8.2012
and which resolution though been quashed by this Court in
C.W.J.C.No.19114 of 2012 and confirmed by the Division Bench in
L.P.A.No.1066 of 2015 preferred by the State which was dismissed
but since the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(Civil) No. 29770 of 2015 hence it is on the legal advice
tendered by the Advocate General that the policy decision in question
has been taken through letter No. 4800 dated 01.04.2016 for grant of
cadre promotions on the basis of inter se seniority in the basic grade
which promotions would be guided by the outcome of the Special
Leave Petitions. The State in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the counter
affidavit has discussed the consequences of the favourable outcome
of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. According to
the State respondents, the outcome of the decisions in the pending
20
Special Leave Petitions may have a bearing on the promotions of the
petitioners in the grade of Section Officers. Learned counsel for the
private respondents/intervenors have practically adopted the
arguments advanced by the learned State counsel to submit that in
view of the pendency of the dispute before the Supreme Court, the
promotions effected in the light of the policy decision dated 1.4.2016
would prejudice none as it is on the basis of the inter se seniority of
the Section Officers in the basic grade.
Petroleum & Natural Gas Regul.Board vs Indraprastha Gas Ltd.& Ors on 1 July, 2015
Law is well settled and a delegate, in the process of issuing
orders for the purpose of carrying on the provisions of „the Act‟
cannot be permitted to either surpass or supplant a statutory procedure
which results in overreaching the statutory procedure. Reference in
this regard is made to the judgment to the Supreme Court reported in
(2015) 9 SCC 209 (Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
Vs. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors.) more particularly paragraphs
44 to 53 of the judgment.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dharamveer Mahto @ Dharamveer Prasad & ... vs State Of Bihar on 19 May, 2011
Although exhaustive arguments have been advanced by either
side but the core issue which requires consideration is, whether in
view of the stipulations present under Section 18(3)(ii)(c) read
alongside Section 15 of „the Act‟ and the stipulations present in the
advertisement dated 12.5.2010 at Annexure-4 as it stood modified
vide corrigendum dated 16.2.2012 and 14.7.2012 at Annexures-5 and
6 respectively, which by itself provides for the break up of the
vacancies so notified as well as the roster to be followed and was
never put to challenge before any forum, and in view of the position
clarified by the writ Court in the judgment rendered in C.W.J.C. No.
6805 of 2012 (Dharamvir Prasad Vs. State) and analogous cases
which was affirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment at
Annexure- 8, there was any occasion for the respondents to delay the
preparation of the gradation list of Section Officers simply because its
notification issued subsequent to the selection process in question
bearing No. 11635 dated 21.08.2012 prescribing for benefit of
22
reservation in promotion, which was quashed by the writ Court and
affirmed by the Division Bench, was pending before the Supreme
Court even though the respondents had failed to obtain stay.