Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.84 seconds)
Santosh Kumar Netam vs State Of C.G on 26 June, 2024 cites

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2006

In a situation where the posts in excess of those advertised had been filled up in extraordinary circumstances, instead of invalidating the excess appointments, the relief could be moulded in such a manner so as to strike a just balance keeping the interest of the State and the interest of the person 2 State of U.P. and Others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others (2006) 3 SCC 330 3 Arup Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Others (2012) 5 SCC 559 seeking public Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:22309 Page 47 of 53 employment depends upon the facts of each case for which no set standard can be laid down.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 244 - A Pasayat - Full Document

A. K. Subraman & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 December, 1974

"30. It would be relevant to refer to the judgments of this Court which have dealt with the scope of the expression "cadre". Rule 4(2) of the Central Engineering Service, Class I, Recruitment Rules, 1954 provided that 75% of the vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer, Class I shall be filled by promotion from Assistant Executive Engineers, Class I. Interpreting the words "vacancies in the grade of Executive Engineer", this Court in A.K. Subraman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 13 held that the word "grade" is used in the sense of cadre.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 99 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Dr. Chakradhar Paswan vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 March, 1988

31. The dispute that arose for consideration of this Court in Dr Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors. 14 relates to the posts of Director and three Deputy Directors in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines, Department of Health, State of Bihar being grouped together for the purpose of implementing the 13 (1975) 1 SCC 319 14 (1988) 2 SCC 214 34 | P a g e policy of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. This Court was of the opinion that though the Director and three Deputy Directors are Class I posts, the posts of Director and Deputy Directors do not constitute one 'cadre'. It was held that the term "cadre" has a definite legal connotation in service jurisprudence. This Court referred to Fundamental Rule 9(4) which defines the word "cadre" to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It was observed that as the post of Director is the highest post in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines for which a higher pay scale is prescribed in comparison to Deputy Directors, who are entitled to a lower scale of pay, they constitute two distinct cadres or grades. This Court further expressed its view that it is open to the Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose, according to administrative convenience and expediency. This Court Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:22309 Page 53 of 53 concluded that the post of Director and Deputy Directors constitute different cadres in the service".
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 118 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next