Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.36 seconds)Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968
In Nair Service Society v. K.C. Alexander (Supra), the necessity of an appropriate amendment has been hinted at. In Rama Bhadriah's case (supra) relief was actually sought for in respect of a gradation list and the subsequent relief was also sought for with regard to the selfsame gradation list and the court granted relief on the principle that when a larger relief has been prayed for, the Court can grant a smaller relief. That is not the case here. The fact that the prayer was made by a supplementary affidavit and that it was controverted by the State before the learned judge can hardly make any difference. Besides, it appears that two appeals were preferred from
the side of the State, challenging the learned Judge's orders, directing the State Government not to take any action as per the provisions of the Rules in question. The course adopted by the learned Judge cannot also be said to have shortened litigation. At our asking Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner respondents told us that his clients would have to file another writ petition if the State Government framed Rules, which according to them were not in accordance with the directions of the learned Judge. How can it be said, therefore, that exercise of jurisdiction with regard to the Rules in question has or will shorten litigation?
Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra, Bombay And ... on 20 October, 1983
In the circumstances stated Dattatraya v. State of Bombay , Chitralekha v. State of Mysore and Muncl.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Birla Cotton, Spinning And Weaving ... on 23 February, 1968
Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Mills (supra) cannot have any application to the facts of this case.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. N. Nanjundappa vs T. Thimmiah & Anr on 8 December, 1971
Besides it has been decided by the Supreme Court that Art. 162 does not confer power on
the Govt. to make rules for the recruitment or conditions of service and that such rules can be made only under Art. 309 of the Constitution, vide R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaia, referred to with approval in Ramendra Singh v. Jagdish Prasad, . By no stretch of imagination it can be said, therefore, that the Rules in question were not Draft Rules or that they have all the strength and authority of a validly passed Govt. order behind them.
Ramendra Singh vs Jagdish Prasad And Ors on 17 February, 1984
Besides it has been decided by the Supreme Court that Art. 162 does not confer power on
the Govt. to make rules for the recruitment or conditions of service and that such rules can be made only under Art. 309 of the Constitution, vide R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaia, referred to with approval in Ramendra Singh v. Jagdish Prasad, . By no stretch of imagination it can be said, therefore, that the Rules in question were not Draft Rules or that they have all the strength and authority of a validly passed Govt. order behind them.
Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... vs K.S. Jagannathan & Anr on 1 April, 1986
In the present case, the Rules have been framed in accordance with the principles of determination of seniority as laid down in the West Bengal (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 with certain reservations. It is these reservations which have given rise to the present litigation. We have already stated previously, what these reservations were. In view of the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Unification of State Services) Rules, 1979, the members of the W.B.J.C.S. became members of the W.B.C.S. with effect from 1-4-1970, yet by virtue of the reservations in the shape of the proviso (a) below Rule 3 of the impugned draft Seniority Rules, they were made juniors to the members of the W.B.C.S. or the Senior Scale of the Unified Service recruited directly on the results of examinations held in the years 1970 to 1974. Prima facie this appeared to be unfair to those members of the W.B.J.C.S., who became members of the W.B.C.S. with effect from 1-4-70. But there is another side of the matter. The process of unification of the two services started with the West Bengal Service (Unification of State Services) Rules of 1974, which merged with effect from 1st March, 1974 the two cadres into one with a senior scale and a
junior scale of pay. Rule 5 of these Rules clearly provided that the unification of the services would not affect in any way the interests of the candidates, who were already under recruitment through the competitive examination already held. Obviously, the Rules of 1974 not only maintained the seniority of the existing officers of the W.B.C.S., they also maintained the seniority of those officers of the W.B.C.S., who were in the process of coming into the service through competitive examination held in 1973 presumably by giving them the senior scale straightway over the then officers of the junior scale who must have been none other than the then unpromoted officers of the W.B. J.C.S. The spirit of Rule 5 was confirmed by the proviso below Rule 6 of tile West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) Recruitment Rules, 1978, which provided that the candidates who had qualified themselves for appointment to the W.B.C.S. (Executive) through examinations held prior to 1st March, 1974 would be appointed to the senior scale of pay. These Rules came into effect from 1st March 1974. This trend was also continued in the West Bengal Services (Unification of State Services) Rules, 1979. These Rules abolished the W.BJ.C.S. and the Junior Scale and fitted all officers of the W.B.J.C.S., recruited prior to 1st March, 1974 and all officers of the Junior Scale recruited after 1st March, 1974 in one and only one scale of the W.B.C.S. with effect from 1-4-70. Rule 3 of these Rules provided, however, that in spite of the above, there would be no change in the existing order of inter se seniority amongst the officers of the unified services already determined as on the day immediately preceding the date of issue of these Rules, viz., 18th May, 1979.