Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)Union Of India vs Dr. P. Rajaram And Others on 20 October, 1992
8. Simply put, the Rule in question is "seniority-cum-suitability". It is not seniority alone but suitability has also to be seen. Naturally , this suitability has to be for the post which the petitioner is aspiring to get. For a Senior Stenographer judging the suitability by testing her efficiency in shorthand & typewriting test is nothing but proper. Ordinary meaning of the word 'suitability" as per the dictionary is appropriateness, aptness, appositeness, fitness, commensurateness, feasibility, usefulness, accepted, expedience etc. Thus the word 'suitability" embraces within itself the traits of capability, aptness and competence. Once this suitability is also the relevant consideration along with seniority, it is for the employer to prescribe the manner in which the suitability of a candidate for a particular post is adjudged. The argument of the petitioner therefore that in order to see the suitability, the employer should only see the confidential reports of the petitioner may not be correct, of course it is open to the employer to adjudge the suitability based on confidential reports for assessment by DPC which may be one of the modes of adjudging suitability as mentioned in the case of UOI Vs. Dr. P. Rajaram & Ors. (supra). However if the High Court has thought it fit to adjudge the suitability by testing the candidate for his/her efficiency in shorthand & typewriting test, keeping in view the consideration that it is the job which is to be done by the petitioner, no fault can be found with such procedure adopted. It is for the employer to prescribe a particular procedure for adjudging the suitability and so long as that procedure is not arbitrary or not based on irrelevant consideration/criteria, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the same. petitioner is a Junior Stenographer. However on becoming senior stenographer, such person is attached to the Judges and there may be a see change in the quality of work to be performed by such person on becoming Senior Stenographers. In view of this, if the Full Court in its wisdom had decided to adjudge the suitability by means of test in shorthand & typewriting so that proficiency/accuracy in shorthand & typewriting test is adjudged, such a method adopted is in consonance with the Rule. According to instructions contained in Chapter 53 of Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration Part-IV, Paragraph 5, each Departmental Promotion Committee should decide its own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the candidates. Since the Junior Stenographers are attached to Joint. Registrars/Deputy Registrars, they are now exposed to the work in the Court which require high degree of proficiency/accuracy in shorthand/typewriting. Accordingly, the D.P.C. constituted in 1989 to fill up a post on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability laid down the guidelines that suitability of the candidates for promotion to the post of P.A. to Registrar cannot be assessed without holding at least a minimum qualifying test to determine their skill, speed and accuracy in shorthand and typing.
Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs The State Of Mysore And Ors. on 17 February, 1971
Para 6: In N. Srinath, M.A. Somashekar, Assistant director, Industries Vs. The State of Mysore and others, 1972 S.L.R. 449, a Division Bench of Mysore High Court has held that when criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-merit the senior most employee should be considered for promotion and if he is otherwise found fir he should be promoted, and only in case of unfitness/unsuitability his junior can be considered for promotion.
B. V. Sivaiah & Ors vs K. Addanki Babu & Ors on 17 July, 1998
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the case of B.V. Sivaixh & Ors. Vs. K. Addanki Babu & Ors. . From this judgment, reliance was put on the following observations:
S. L. Sachdev & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 October, 1980
4) It was also contended that taking of test when it was not prescribed in the Rule amounted to amending the Rules by administrative instructions which was not permissible and in support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of S. L. Sachdev & others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 411 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Shamsher Jang. shukla & Ors. .
State Of Haryana Etc. Etc vs Shamsher Jang Bahadur Etc. Etc on 19 April, 1972
4) It was also contended that taking of test when it was not prescribed in the Rule amounted to amending the Rules by administrative instructions which was not permissible and in support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of S. L. Sachdev & others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 411 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Shamsher Jang. shukla & Ors. .
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Airport Authority vs Nilu Sharma & Ors. on 16 October, 1998
It was also submitted that the matter in this respect was considered by Full Court on administrative side as far back as in 1989 when it was decided that "suitability" of the candidate is to be adjudged by taking shorthand and typing test and this practice was invoked for last more than 10 years. In fact petitioner had herself appeared in this test three times. It was a different matter that he could not succeed in any of these attempts, and therefore, as an afterthought she had filed the present writ petition challenging the prescription of holding shorthand & typewriting test. Mr. Sanjay K. Kaul also referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of National Airport Authority Vs. Nilu Sharma & Others, which was also a case for promotion to the post of Stenographer Gr-II and the Rule was identically worded i.e. namely "seniority-cum-suitability". The prescription of shorthand & typewriting test to consider the suitability of the candidate was held to be valid.
1