Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.41 seconds)G. Deendayalan Ambedkar vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 November, 1996
Reference was also
made the judgment of this Court in Prabhakar and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra And Others, (1976) 2 SCC 890, and G. Deendayalan vs.
Union of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 638.
R.S. Ajara & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 3 March, 1997
Learned counsel also referred
to the judgment of this Court in R.S. Ajara vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 3
SCC 641 and the rules should not be interpreted to prohibit counting
the period of training for the purpose of seniority.
Prafulla Kumar Swain Etc. Etc vs Prakash Chandra Misra And Ors on 18 January, 1993
Learned counsel submitted that though the
Government had tried to overcome the judgment of the Division Bench
by issuing a Resolution on 19.7.2007, it was subsequently revoked vide
order dated 15.01.2010, following the judgment of the Gujarat High
1
Court in SCA No.7488 of 2009. Referring to 1969- Rules, 1974 Rules
etc. learned counsel submitted that inter se seniority between both the
batches has to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from
the date of selection or from the date of commencement of the training.
Learned counsel referred the Judgment of the Apex Court in Prafulla
Kumar Swain vs. Prakash Chandra Misra, 1993 (suppl) 3 SCC 181;
Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 3 SCC 723; Bhey Ram
Sharma vs. Haryana S.E.B.,, 1994 (supp) 1 SCC 276.
Pramod K. Pankaj vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 20 November, 2003
Learned counsel submitted that though the
Government had tried to overcome the judgment of the Division Bench
by issuing a Resolution on 19.7.2007, it was subsequently revoked vide
order dated 15.01.2010, following the judgment of the Gujarat High
1
Court in SCA No.7488 of 2009. Referring to 1969- Rules, 1974 Rules
etc. learned counsel submitted that inter se seniority between both the
batches has to be reckoned from the date of appointment and not from
the date of selection or from the date of commencement of the training.
Learned counsel referred the Judgment of the Apex Court in Prafulla
Kumar Swain vs. Prakash Chandra Misra, 1993 (suppl) 3 SCC 181;
Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 3 SCC 723; Bhey Ram
Sharma vs. Haryana S.E.B.,, 1994 (supp) 1 SCC 276.
K.R. Mudgal & Ors vs R.P. Singh & Ors on 30 September, 1986
Reference was
also made on the decision of Apex Court in K.R. Mudgal vs. R.P.
Singh (1986) 4 SCC 531. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned counsel for
the respondents also endorsed the view of the respondents and also
referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State Government in
support of their stand.
Union Of India & Anr vs S.K. Goel & Ors on 12 February, 2007
Public
money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise
untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the
2
lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among
parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest.
Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be
unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous
reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles
have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another v.
S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of
Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 5 SCC 604.
Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003
Public
money is also being spent by the Government to defend their otherwise
untenable stand. Further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the
2
lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness among
parties at the cost of sound administration affecting public interest.
Courts are repeating the ratio that the seniority once settled, shall not be
unsettled but the men in power often violate that ratio for extraneous
reasons, which, at times calls for departmental action. Legal principles
have been reiterated by this Court in Union of India and Another v.
S.K. Goel and Others (2007) 14 SCC 641, T.R. Kapoor v. State of
Haryana (1989) 4 SCC 71, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 5 SCC 604.
G.P. Doval And Others vs The Chief Secretarygovernment Of U.P. ... on 18 July, 1984
In view of the settled law the decisions cited by the
appellants in G.P. Doval's case (supra), Prabhakar and Others case,
G. Deendayalan, R.S. Ajara are not applicable to the facts of the case.
Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs State Of Assam And Ors on 13 April, 1989
In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam &
Ors.(1989) 3 SCC, 709, this Court held as follows:-