Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Sanjay Prakash vs Union Of India on 28 June, 2021 cites

Union Of India vs Shri Harananda on 5 February, 2019

a. Grant stay of appointment of persons by way of deputation to any of the cadre posts of CISF Group A Executive Cadre; b. Grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the impugned judgment and final order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 12751/2019; and c. Pass any other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Similar are the prayers in the other petitions for special leave to appeal. Before the High Court, the petitioners had mainly relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs Harananda [(2019) 14 SCC 126]. In this judgment, inter-alia, it was held that Railway Protection Force Page | 12 was to be constituted as Organised Group A Civil Service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - M R Shah - Full Document

A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983

10. Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the applicants are not necessary or proper parties in this set of proceedings. The petitioners are seeking directions for amendments of a set of existing Rules and office memoranda, which provide for, inter-alia, filling up of certain percentage of senior administrative grade posts by deputation. Relief is sought here against the concerned arm of the Union Government over framing of service rules that would have the effect of, among other change in service structure, entail IPS officers from holding the senior positions of the respective Forces on deputation. But as I have already observed, by filing these applications, the applicants are volunteering their participation in these petitions to highlight their grievances. Thus the ratio of A. Janardhana (supra), which dealt with the aspects of leaving out a set of persons from whose interest could be affected by the outcome of a case, cannot be applied in this set of proceedings. The applicants’ claim for entry to these proceedings is founded on their Page | 13 possibility of being engaged on deputation to the senior administrative posts of CAPFs being adversely affected. Objections to their presence in these proceedings are mainly on two grounds. First is that the petitioners are questioning certain actions of the Government pertaining to clogging of promotional avenues of in-service officers of the CAPFs. In the event such plea of the petitioners is accepted by this Court, then the right of an IPS Officer to be in deputation will lapse or be largely impaired. Such deputation provisions do not originate from general principles of being placed on deputation, which is a recognized practise guiding organized services. Placing an IPS Officer on deputation in these Forces are integrally linked to the service rules of the respective Forces. Moreover, there is provision for deputation of IPS Officers as per the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954. Reference has been made to the schedule to Central Industrial Security Force (Group ‘A’ Executive Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2002, Rule 13 of the SSB Rules, 2009, schedule to the Central Reserve Police Border Force Group “A” General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules and Section 12 of ITBP Act, 1992 Page | 14 and schedule to the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978. These instruments provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs. In the given facts in my opinion, Jitender Rana, first applicant in Interlocutory Application Nos. 7477 and 11026 of 2021 ought to be impleaded in the respective petitions for Special Leave to Appeal in connection with which these applications have been taken out. He is an IPS Officer on deputation in a CAPF and has direct and subsisting interest in the subject controversy. The two petitions in which he seeks to be impleaded however do not relate to the Force in which he is on deputation. But considering the fact that these proceedings are being heard together and arise out of a common judgment, I do not consider this factor should determine his plea of being impleaded to these proceedings. I am of the opinion that he fulfils the requirement of being impleaded as a proper party and direct him to be added as a respondent in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12466 of 2020 and Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12570 of 2020.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 238 - D A Desai - Full Document

The General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. on 1 September, 1971

The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents. We may in this connection refer to G.M., South Central Railway, Secundrabad v. A.V.R. Siddhanti. Repelling a contention on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in the case, this court observed that [SCC para 15, p. 341 : SCC (L&S) p. 296] the respondents (original petitioners) are impeaching the validity of Page | 9 those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

G.J. Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 September, 2015

(ii) seek mandamus directing the respondents to amend the RRs of each service, by including various attributes, as required by Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandums (OMs)dated 20th November, 2009, 15th December, 2009, 24th March 2009, 24th April 2009 and 8th May, 2018, particularly to the extent provide for all posts upto SAG level being filled up by promotion only and not by deputation, and to thereafter conduct CR of Group ‘A’ Officers of each cadre, by treating each service as Organised Group ‘A’ Service (OGAS), as held by this Court in G.J.Singh Vs. Union of India 2015 SCC online Del 11803 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Harananda (2019) 14 SCC 126.” Page | 3
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - N Waziri - Full Document

Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. Etc on 27 July, 1984

5. Submission on behalf of the applicants, on the other hand, has been that the Indian Police Service Page | 6 is an All-India Service under Article 312 of the Constitution of India. As per IPS (Cadre Rules) 1954, every State has a central deputation reserve not exceeding 40% of the total senior duty posts. It is pointed out on behalf of the applicants that deputation is an integral part of the constitutional scheme under Article 312 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has pointed out that the individual service rules of each of the five forces provide for deputation in senior posts and the IPS officers’ right to get impleaded in these five proceedings flow from such provisions also. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that the object of the petitioners is to do away with deputation in the CAPFs by IPS officers altogether and fill up all the senior administrative grade posts of the respective forces from within the service only. This would impact the IPS officers’ career prospect. On the point as to whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties, the case of Prabodh Verma And Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[1984 (4) SCC 251] has been relied upon. In this Judgment, it has been, inter-alia held:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 444 - D P Madon - Full Document
1