Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.80 seconds)
S.B. Mathur And Others vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Of Delhi High ... on 31 August, 1988 cites

Guman Singh vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 26 July, 1971

In this connection Mr. Thakur drew our attention to that decision of this Court in the case of Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1471] Suppl. S.C.R. 900. The few facts which need to be noticed in connection with this case are that in 1965 the State of Rajasthan decided to introduce the system of making promotions to the service on the basis of merit alone in addition to the existing system of making promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. On December 14, 1965, Rule 28B was incorporated into Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, providing for appointment by promotion to posts In the service on the basis of merit and on the basis of' seniority-cum-merit in the proportion of 50:50 and prescribing that the number of eligible candidates to be considered for promotion was to be 10 times the total number of vacancies to be filled up on PG NO 786 the basis of merit as well as seniority-cum-merit. Prior to August 26, 1966, Rule 28B was amended but we are not concerned with such amendments. On that date, Rule 28B was further amended by providing that the proportion of promotion to be made by selection on the basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit was to be 1:2 instead of 50:50. On the same date, a proviso was also added to sub-rule (2) of Rule 28B providing that only officers who have been in service for not less than 6 years in the lower grade of the cadre will be eligible for being considered for the first promotion in the cadre. There was, however, a circular issued subsequently, that is after the said Rules were framed which provided that 50 marks were to be given for the record of 5 years prior to the period of 5 years preceding the selection; and for the five years preceding the selection the marking of 25 was to be given on the basis of confidential rolls. The validity of this Circular was challenged on various grounds. This Court took the view that from the Circular it was clear that an officer who has rendered less than five years of service will not be eligible to get a single mark out of 50 which is provided for the record for the period preceding five years far the simple reason that he will have no such record. An officer who has put in less than five years of service has been straightway denied 50 marks out of 75 marks and he has to establish his worth within the small range of 25 marks on the basis of his confidential rolls which will be available for a period of less than five years. It was held that this formula which was prescribed in the circular was opposed to Rule 28B and Rule 32 which ensured that merit and merit alone was to form the basis of promotion as against the quota fixed for merit. in contradistinction to seniority- cum-merit. It may be pointed out that in that case the circular question stated that the instructions contained therein should be strictly kept in view when persons are being considered for promotion. In view of this the Circular was held to be invalid. In our view. this. decision does not lend support to the submission of learned Counsel. Mr. Thakur. This Court pointed out that Rule 28B of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, in brief, provided for two methods of section one based on merit and the other based on seniority-cum-merit. In other words the rule provides that the promotion based on seniority-cum- merit for 50 per cent the posts in contradistinction to that based on seniority-cum-merit prescribed for the other 50 per cent of the posts. and that the selection on merit shall be strictly on the basis of merit. Rule 32 was similar Rule 28B. It was pointed out that by this Court he word merit is not capable of easy definition. but it can be safely said that merit is the sum total of various qualities and attributes of an employee such as his academic qualifications, his distinction in the University, his PG NO 787 character, integrity, devotion to duty and the manner in which he discharges his duties. Allied to this may be other matters or factors such as his punctuality in work, the quality and out-turn of work done by him and the manner of his dealing with his superiors and subordinate officers and the general public and his rank in the service. Rule 32 in essence adopts what is stated in Rule 28B. It was held that the restriction contained in the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 28B providing that before an officer in the junior scale could be considered fit for promotion to the senior scale, he should have worked on post in the service at least for some period of time, was quite reasonable. The provisions contained in sub-rule (2) confining the selection to senior most officers not exceeding 10 times the number of total vacancies was also held to be reasonable. Such a provision would encourage the members of the service aspiring for promotion to make themselves eligible by increasing their efficiency in the discharge of their duties. However, the impugned Circular was bad in law as it left no discretion to the Selection or Promotion Committee to adopt any method other than that indicated in the Circular in making selections for promotion and the method prescribed was so rigid and so worded as to impede the selection being made on merit. It was held that the Circular was violative of the rule prescribing selection on merit. We may point out that this decision does not take the view that where selection is to be on merit, seniority cannot be taken as a relevant factor for limiting the zone of consideration provided of course, that this is not done so rigidly as to exclude a proper selection on merit being made. In fact, it runs to the contrary effect. We may refer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

In this connection, to the case of Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan und Anr., [1968] 1 S.C.R. 111 where it was inter alia contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to selection grade posts, the Government cannot issue administrative instructions and such instructions cannot impose any restriction not found in the rules already framed. A Bench comprising five learned Judges of this Court dealt with the contention as follows (p. 119):
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 592 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next