Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs Somasundram Viswanath & Ors on 22 September, 1988
P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989
22. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. , wherein it was clarified that every statute or statutory rule is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights, the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only.
Union Of India (Uoi), Represented By The ... vs The Registrar, Central Administrative ... on 18 July, 2005
24. The next question then arises, whether O.M. dated 8.2.2002 can be said to be in conflict with the statutory rules or is merely supplementing the rules. We have applied our mind on this question. If in the RRs, the method would not have been mentioned as selection by merit and it had been mentioned only as selection, in that case probably we would have agreed with the respondents that by the instructions, they could have supplemented the rules but in this case method of promotion is clearly mentioned in the RRs as selection by merit, meaning thereby merit had to be given greater emphasis. By adopting OM dated 8.2.2002 DPC, in fact, diluted or watered down the specific method, which was laid down in the statutory rules, which, according to us, is not sustainable in law. No body can dispute the preposition that DPC can devise their own method in assessing the suitability of officers but that does not give any right to the DPC to ignore the criteria as laid down in the statutory rules specially when the Ministry had also proposed to follow the method of selection by merit, meaning thereby that DPC ought to have placed such officers, who were graded as outstanding en-block senior to those who were graded as very good and then prepared the select panel accordingly upto the number of vacancies.
Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983
Article 73 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Raj Kishore Yadav & Anr on 20 June, 2006
(i) It is, however, clarified that in case applicant/other officers become entitled to be promoted from an earlier date in view of recommendations to be made by review DPC, they would be entitled to only notional pay fixation from that date in view of State of UP and Ors. v. Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.;
1