Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.45 seconds)
Syed Khalid Rizvi And Ors. And Ramesh ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 November, 1992
cites
Section 3 in The All India Services Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. P. Khanna & Ors vs S.A.F. Abbas & Ors. Etc on 22 February, 1972
In R.P. Khanna and Ors. v. S.A.F. Abbas and Ors. etc. , the appellants were direct recruits and the respondents were promotees. The direct recruits were appointed to the IAS in the year 1949-50. The promotees were initially promoted to the IAS in the year 1955-56. In fixing their inter se seniority in terms of seniority rules, the Govt. of India allotted 1948 to the promotees as the year of allotment and placed them below the junior most among the direct recruits of the year 1948. On the representation of the direct recruits that the State Govt. had no power to create cadre post retrospectively and the year of allotment to the promotee was wrong, in September 20, 1967, the Central Govt. tentatively revised the year of allotment and allotted 1950 to some and 1952 to others as year of allotment. That was challenged in the High Court by the promotees and succeeded. On appeal, a 3 Judge Bench of this Court held that as per Rule 3(3)(b) of IAS. Regulation of Seniority Rules, 1954, the year of allotment of an officer who was appointed to the service by promotion shall be the year of allotment of the junior most among the officer who entered the service by direct recruitment and who officiated continuously in a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the promotee. The second proviso to the rule laid down that the promotee shall be deemed to have officiated continuously in the senior post prior to the date of inclusion of his name in the select list.
Amrik Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 April, 1980
In Amrik Singh's case an express order in writing under Rule 3 of Residuary rule is mandatory. In this case neither any representation to relax the rules was made nor any order in writing in this behalf was expressly passed by the Central Govt. The fiction of deeming relaxation would emasculate the operation of the Rules and Regulations and be fraught with grave imbalances and chain reaction. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention that there would be deemed relaxation of the Rules and Regulations.
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
In Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , the Constitution Bench held in proposition 'A' that once any one is appointed to a post according to rules his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of confirmation. A corollary of the above rule is that where initial appointment is ad-hoc and not according to rules and made as stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering seniority. Proposition 'B' lays down that if the initial appointment was not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till regularisation of his service the period of officiating service will be counted towards seniority. The contention raised by the promotees in that case was that since they were appointed according to rules and had been uninterruptedly officiating in the posts till regularisation they were entitled to count their temporary service towards seniority. On those facts, the Constitution Bench held that the initial appointments were according to rules, and the promotees were entitled to seniority from the date of initial promotion. The propositions should be understood and applied in the light of the facts in each case. Propositions 'A' and 'B' must be read together in the light of the discussion in Paragraph 13 of the judgment.
K.C. Joshi vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 April, 1985
In Keshav Chandra Joshi's case (Supra), the writ petitioners were Forest Range Officers in U.P. State Forest Subordinate Service. Due to paucity of direct recruit Asstt. Conservators of Forest by the U.P.S.C. the Forest Range officers were temporarily promoted and they continued to officiate as Asstt. Conservators of Forest for a period ranging between 5 to 12 years. They filed a writ petition under Article 32 contending that they became senior to the direct recruits who were recruited later on and that their continuous officiation should be counted towards their seniority. This Court, while repelling the contention, held that appointment to the post in accordance with the rules is a pre-condition and the conditions of rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and that the promotees get their seniority only from the date of the regular promotion in accordance with the rules and within quota. The entire officiating period was held to be fortuitous. It must, therefore, be held that recruitment by promotion in accordance with the Regulation and Rules are conditions of Recruitment and are mandatory and should be complied with.
A.N.Sehgal And Ors vs Raje Ram Sheoran And Ors on 5 April, 1991
In Sehgal's case, this Court held that chances of promotion and the aspiration to reach higher echelons of service would enthuse a member of the service to dedicate himself assiduously to the service with deligence, exhibiting expertise, straight forwardness with missionary zeal, self-confidence, honesty and integrity. The absence of chances of promotion would generate frustration and an officer would tend to become corrupt, slower and a mediocre. Equal opportunity is a fertile resource to augment efficiency of the service. Equal chances of promotion to the direct recruits and the promotees would produce harmony with accountability to proper implementation of government policies. Unless the select list is made annually and reviewed and revised from time to time, the promoted officers would stand to lose their chances of consideration for promotion which would be a legitimate expectation.
Masood Akhtar Khan And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 16 July, 1990
In Masood Akhtar Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. it was held that if the initial appointment is not according to rules, the benefit of continuous officiation will not be given.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Shardul Singh on 2 December, 1959
In State of M.P. and Ors. v. Shardul Singh, this Court held that conditions of service means all those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his appointment (emphasis Supplied) to his retirement and even beyond, in matters like pensions etc.