Competent Authority vs Barangore Jute Factory & Ors on 22 November, 2005
Support was garnered from the
ratio in Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and Others1.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)State Of Kerala & Ors vs K. Prasad & Anr on 9 July, 2007
"10. ................... In view of such comprehensive
procedure laid down in the statute, an application for
upgradation has necessarily to be made and considered
strictly in a manner in consonance with the Rules. It
needs little emphasis that the Rules are meant to be
and have to be complied with and enforced
scrupulously. Waiver or even relaxation of any rule,
unless such power exists under the rules, is bound to
provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and
favouritism, which is totally opposed to the rule of law
and our constitutional values. It goes without saying
that even an executive order is required to be made
strictly in consonance with the rules. Therefore, when
an executive order is called in question, while
exercising the power of judicial review the Court is
required to see whether the Government has departed
from such rules and if so, the action, of the
Government is liable to be struck down."
P. Mohan Reddy Etc vs E.A.A. Charles And Ors on 16 February, 2001
In P. Mohan Reddy (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
held that;
Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank vs Ananda Chandra Das on 12 September, 1994
In Chairman Puri Gramya Bank (supra) the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court held that;
Suresh Chandra Jha vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 November, 2006
In Suresh Chandra Jha (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court while considering whether seniority ought to be based on
merit or according to the date of joining held that;
R.M. Ramual vs State Of Himachal Pradesh Ors on 2 December, 1988
We may usefully
recall the ratiocination in R. M. Ramual (supra) already extracted
hereinabove observing, inter alia, that a seniority list illegally
prepared to the prejudice of Officer or Officers is always liable to be
examined and set aside by the Court.
Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003
7. Countering the arguments of Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, Learned Senior Government Advocate would contend that
17 candidates were appointed in the year 1996 as against 43 vacant
posts of GNM that year thereby implying that the appointments
were made without any interview or Selection Test, the qualification
of the candidates being the sole consideration. Merely because the
name of the Petitioner appeared at Serial No.3 it could not be
interpreted as her inter se seniority. Moreover, seniority would be
reckoned from the date of joining and evidently the Petitioner joined
service only on 25-05-1996 as against others who admittedly joined
prior to her in time. Besides, should the date of joining be the same
then the date of birth and thereby the age of the candidate would be
the factor for consideration while fixing seniority. That, infact in the
year 1996 there were no Rules to follow for guidance on seniority
and the list was prepared at random, apart from which seniority is
not a fundamental right, but merely a civil right. Support on these
WP(C) No.35 of 2017 13
Suman Rai vs. State of Sikkim and Others
aspects was drawn from Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and
Others8.
P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974
Forwarding the argument that the Petition was filed
belatedly rendering the Petitioner guilty of laches, attention was
drawn to P. S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu9. That, in the
instant case despite knowledge of the re-fixation of inter se seniority
in 2002 the Petitioner has approached this Court only in the year
2017, fifteen years after such exercise.
Reserve Bank Of India vs N. C. Paliwal & Others on 24 August, 1976
While arguing that the
Court can only enquire into whether the Rule laid down by the State
is arbitrary and irrational leading to inequality of opportunity
amongst employees belonging to the same class, reliance was
placed on Reserve Bank of India vs. N. C. Paliwal and Others10. It was
urged that in view of the grounds put forth, the Petition be
dismissed.
Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors on 25 May, 2012
24. While addressing the question of laches, reliance was
placed by the Respondents No.3, 5 to 14 and 16 to 18, on Vijay
Kumar Kaul (supra), which enumerates the proposition that a litigant
who invokes the jurisdiction of a Court claiming seniority has to
approach the Court at the earliest. In the matter at hand it emerges
with clarity that the Petitioner learnt of resettlement of seniority
only in 2016 which fact could not be countered by the Respondents.
Respondents No.1 and 2 have issued Notification of 2002
unbeknownst to the Petitioner, they cannot therefore impute
knowledge of their act to her. Since she learnt of the resettlement
of seniority in 2016 which is supported by the letter of 11-11-2016,
which admittedly has been rescinded by the Respondents No.1 and
2, the conclusion thereof is that there has been no delay in the
Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.