Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)Abraham Jacob & Ors vs Union Of India on 11 February, 1998
Valid rules made under proviso appended to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India operates so long the said rules are not repealed and
replaced. The draft rules, therefore, could not form the basis for grant of
promotion, when Rules to the contrary is holding the field. It can safely be
assumed that the principle in Abraham Jacob (supra), Vimal Kumari (supra)
and Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) that draft Rules can be acted
upon, will apply where there are no rules governing the matter and where
recruitment is governed by departmental instructions or executive orders
under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
High Court Of Gujarat & Anr vs Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors on 10 March, 2003
Valid rules made under proviso appended to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India operates so long the said rules are not repealed and
replaced. The draft rules, therefore, could not form the basis for grant of
promotion, when Rules to the contrary is holding the field. It can safely be
assumed that the principle in Abraham Jacob (supra), Vimal Kumari (supra)
and Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat (supra) that draft Rules can be acted
upon, will apply where there are no rules governing the matter and where
recruitment is governed by departmental instructions or executive orders
under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
Vimal Kumari vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 4 February, 1998
"27. It is now trite that draft rules which are made to lie
in a nascent state for a long time cannot be the basis for
making appointment or recommendation. Rules even in
their draft stage can be acted upon provided there is a
clear intention on the part of the Government to enforce
those rules in the near future. (See Vimal Kumari v. State
of Haryana)"
Rajinder Singh (Dr.) vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 11 April, 2001
In Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others [(2001) 5 SCC
482], this Court held:
Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd vs Zora Singh & Ors on 11 August, 2005
In terms of Article 16 of the Constitution, the employees similarly
situated cannot be discriminated. Employees having the same qualification,
thus, must be considered by a duly constituted DPC consisting of the
Chairman/Member, UPSC, Chief Secretary and Secretary (Works). It is
unfortunate that the Government of Pondicherry in stead and place of asking
the UPSC to constitute a DPC for consideration of the cases of all eligible
candidates, passed the order (vide letter dated 28.9.2005) on the same day on
which the new Rules came into effect, requesting UPSC to regularize the
services of R. Sundar Raju as Chief Engineer from the date of his ad hoc
promotion. Such an act betrays a lack of bona fides on the part of a State
which is required to be performed in a fair and reasonable manner. It
smacks of favouritism. Having regard to the unauthorized purpose for
which the action has been taken, the same would attract the principle of
malice in law. [See Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Zora Singh and
Others, (2005) 6 SCC 776].
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia And Ors on 17 December, 2003
Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post.
A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which
he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that
when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an
officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes
place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. When the
tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an
indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation
should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example,
unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is
not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala
fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice. [See
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others,
(2004) 2 SCC 65, para 25]
Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another [(2000) 5 SCC 362],
relied upon by the learned Solicitor General, was a case where the petitioner
therein had asserted a claim for permanent absorption in the department.
The matter relating to appointment through the Government of
Pondicherry Public Works Department Group "A" Post of Chief Engineer
Recruitment Rules, 1996 was governed in terms of a notification dated 11th
December, 1996. The said notification was issued by the Government of
Pondicherry in exercise of its power under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. Rule 3 thereof prescribes that the method of
recruitment thereto shall be as specified in columns 5 to 14 of the Schedule
appended thereto. In terms of the Schedule, the post of Chief Engineer was
a selection post and one of the methods for recruitment as envisaged in
Column 11 thereof is that the same post may be filled up by direct
recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/ transfer. The said post could
be filled up by transfer on deputation in terms of Column 12 of the
Scheduled appended thereto. The appointment of the First Respondent in
the said post was on short term deputation/ temporary basis till a regular
appointment is made.
Kunal Nanda vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 April, 2000
Ordinarily, a deputationist has no legal right to continue in the post.
A deputationist indisputably has no right to be absorbed in the post to which
he is deputed. However, there is no bar thereto as well. It may be true that
when deputation does not result in absorption in the service to which an
officer is deputed, no recruitment in its true import and significance takes
place as he is continued to be a member of the parent service. When the
tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an
indefeasible right to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation
should not be curtailed except on such just grounds as, for example,
unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance. But, even where the tenure is
not specified, an order of reversion can be questioned when the same is mala
fide. An action taken in a post haste manner also indicates malice. [See
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others,
(2004) 2 SCC 65, para 25]
Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and Another [(2000) 5 SCC 362],
relied upon by the learned Solicitor General, was a case where the petitioner
therein had asserted a claim for permanent absorption in the department.
The matter relating to appointment through the Government of
Pondicherry Public Works Department Group "A" Post of Chief Engineer
Recruitment Rules, 1996 was governed in terms of a notification dated 11th
December, 1996. The said notification was issued by the Government of
Pondicherry in exercise of its power under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. Rule 3 thereof prescribes that the method of
recruitment thereto shall be as specified in columns 5 to 14 of the Schedule
appended thereto. In terms of the Schedule, the post of Chief Engineer was
a selection post and one of the methods for recruitment as envisaged in
Column 11 thereof is that the same post may be filled up by direct
recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/ transfer. The said post could
be filled up by transfer on deputation in terms of Column 12 of the
Scheduled appended thereto. The appointment of the First Respondent in
the said post was on short term deputation/ temporary basis till a regular
appointment is made.