Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.49 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kumar Gupta , Vidya Sagar Gupta & ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 March, 1997
In our opinion, the above
view expressed in Ashok Kumar
Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State
of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish
Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of
Haryana14, and other cases, if it is
intended to lay down that the right
guaranteed to employees for being
"considered" for promotion
according to relevant rules of
recruitment by promotion (i.e.
whether on the basis of seniority or
merit) is only a statutory right and
not a fundamental right, we cannot
accept the proposition.
Keshav Chandra Joshi And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 November, 1990
We are also of the view
that no retrospective promotion or
seniority can be granted from a date
when an employee has not even
been borne in the cadre so as to
19
adversely affect the direct recruits
appointed validly in the meantime,
as decided by this Court in Keshav
Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held
that when promotion is outside the
quota, seniority would be reckoned
from the date of the vacancy within
the quota rendering the previous
service fortuitous. The previous
promotion would be regular only
from the date of the vacancy within
the quota and seniority shall be
counted from that date and not from
the date of his earlier promotion or
subsequent confirmation. In order to
do justice to the promotes, it would
not be proper to do injustice to the
direct recruits......
38. This Court has
consistently held that no
retrospective promotion can be
granted nor can any seniority be
given on retrospective basis from a
date when an employee has not
even been borne in the cadre
particularly when this would
adversely affect the direct recruits
who have been appointed validity in
the meantime."
(emphasis supplied)
Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation ... vs Pravat Kiran Mohanty And Ors on 12 February, 1991
41. This Court, time and
again, has laid emphasis on right to
be considered for promotion to be a
fundamental right, as was held by
K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift
Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran
Mohanty in para 4 of the report
which is reproduced below:
Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999
'4....... There is no
fundamental right to promotion, but
an employee has only right to be
considered for promotion, when it
arises, in accordance with relevant
rules. From this perspective in our
view the conclusion of the High
Court that the gradation list
prepared by the corporation is in
violation of the right of respondent-
writ petitioner to equality enshrined
under Article 14 read with Article 16
of the Constitution, and the
respondent-writ petitioner was
unjustly denied of the same is
obviously unjustified.'
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit
Singh v. State of Punjab, laying
emphasis on Article 14 and Article
16(1) of the Constitution of India
held that if a person who satisfies
the eligibility and the criteria for
promotion but still is not considered
for promotion, then there will be
clear violation of his/her's
fundamental right. Jagannadha
Rao, J. speaking for himself and
Anand, C.J., Venkataswami,
Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed
the same as follows in paras 22 and
27: 'Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right
to be considered for promotion a
fundamental right.
16
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1)
are closely connected. They deal
with individual rights of the person.
Article 14 demands that the 'State
shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws'. Article 16(1)
issues a positive command that:
'there shall be equality of
Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 25 September, 2006
The said view was restated in
Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn.
(Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., in
the following words:
'37.
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai on 8 December, 2021
In this context, we may
profitably cite a recent decision in
Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10
where, citing earlier precedents in
Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation
Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit
Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-
Judge Bench observed thus:
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
In our opinion, the above
view expressed in Ashok Kumar
Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State
of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish
Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of
Haryana14, and other cases, if it is
intended to lay down that the right
guaranteed to employees for being
"considered" for promotion
according to relevant rules of
recruitment by promotion (i.e.
whether on the basis of seniority or
merit) is only a statutory right and
not a fundamental right, we cannot
accept the proposition.
State Of Bihar And Others Etc vs Akhouri Sachindra Nath And Others Etc on 19 April, 1991
In State of Bihar v. Akhouri
Sachindra Nath, it was held that
retrospective seniority cannot be
given to an employee from a date
when he was not even borne in the
cadre, nor can seniority be given
with retrospective effect as that
might adversely affect others.