Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
Raj Kumar And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 February, 2026 cites

Sukhdev Singh vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation ... on 1 March, 2018

26. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh and others vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others 2018 (4) SCT 716, also is a judgment on the facts of its own. This Court was interpreting Regulation 9 of the Regulations 92/12 which provided for separate channel of recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer. It was held that 12½% quota for accelerated promotion based upon higher qualification has to be filled on the basis of seniority of a candidate possessing requisite experience for the post with higher qualification.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - J Singh - Full Document

Pratham Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Ram ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 August, 2012

28. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon a judgment of learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Sharma vs State of Haryana, 1996 (4) SCT 715 wherein the petitioner has joined as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in Haryana PWD on 27.09.1973. He passed AMIE examination in the year 1982. Consequently, he became eligible to be considered for promotion on 01.01.1983, as against respondent no.3 and 4, although they had joined as Junior Engineers on 17.10.1968 and 03.10.1961 but had obtained qualification only in the year 1983 and consequently became eligible to be considered for promotion on 01.01.1994.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

I. Chuba Jamir & Ors vs State Of Nagaland & Ors on 17 July, 2009

"16. The petitioners have assailed Rules 9 and 12 of the 1966 Rules on the ground that they do not specifically provide for promotion of a Junior Engineer (Civil) to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Civil) after attaining the higher qualification of AMIE, etc. as is provided for in Rule 7(3)(ii) of the 1966 Rules. The underline premise on which such submission is made is that the eligibility for promotion having been acquired by the incumbent, he becomes entitled 12 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 20:28:41 ::: CWP-17713-2021& connected matters -13- to be promoted. This premise, however, has no sanctity in law. It is by now well settled that mere eligibility does not confer any right of promotion for the incumbent. We may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in I. Chuba Jamir and others vs The State of Nagaland and others 2009 (15) SCC 169, wherein it has been held as under: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 22 - A Alam - Full Document

P.Sakthi Kumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 8 January, 2019

17. So far as right of an employee for promotion is concerned, the position in law is by now well settled as per which the limited right with the employee is to be considered for promotion, and that there is no vested right as such for promotion. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Sakthi vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 2025 INSC 620.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs K.K. Vadera And Ors on 26 October, 1989

"7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post vide Union of India and others vs. K.K. Vadera and others 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 (1) SCC 683, K. V. Subba Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1988(2) SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha & others vs. State of Bihar and others 2004 (10) SCC 734 etc."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 164 - M M Dutt - Full Document

K.V. Subba Rao & Ors. Etc vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 24 February, 1988

"7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post vide Union of India and others vs. K.K. Vadera and others 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 (1) SCC 683, K. V. Subba Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1988(2) SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha & others vs. State of Bihar and others 2004 (10) SCC 734 etc."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 59 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Union Of India vs Manpreet Singh Poonam on 8 March, 2022

In Union of India and another vs Manpreet Singh Poonam etc. 2022 (6) SCC 105, the Supreme Court has held that a vacancy alone does not give an employee the right to a retrospective promotion, particularly when the rules for promotion include a prescribed selection process. Promotions and related benefits are governed by the specific rules for such posts and not by rules for a different post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 31 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Shailendra Dania & Others vs S.P. Dubey & Others on 17 April, 2007

21. Coming to the issue of promotion, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania and others vs S. P. Dubey and others ; 2007 (5) SCC 535 to buttress petitioner's claim for promotion. In this case promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was from separate channels of Junior Engineers possessing diploma and degree. 50% posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment, while 50% were to be filled by way of promotion. 50% promotion quota was equally divided between Junior Engineers possessing degree on completion of 3 years of service after obtaining Engineering Degree and 8 years' service for the diploma holders. The Supreme Court after analyzing the service rules held that service experience required for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer by a degree holder in the limited quota of degree holder Junior Engineers cannot be equated with the service rendered as a diploma holder nor can be substituted for service rendered as a degree holder. When the claim is made for a fixed quota, the condition necessary for becoming eligible for promotion has to be complied with. The two channels of promotion were held to be watertight compartments and a respective claim for promotion had to be made with reference to its specific quota. Neither a diploma holder Junior Engineer could 15 of 20 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 20:28:41 ::: CWP-17713-2021& connected matters -16- claim promotion in the quota of degree holder, nor can a degree holder Junior Engineer make any claim for promotion for the quota fixed for diploma holder. This principle laid down by the Supreme Court does not advance the cause of the present petitioners. There is no separate quota earmarked for promotion for degree holders vis-àvis diploma holders. The criteria for promotion herein is seniority-cummerit. Thus, the promotion can be offered to those who are senior and possess the eligibility and promotional post is available for them. It has not been shown by the petitioners that any ineligible person junior to them is promoted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 87 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Banerjee & Ors on 16 December, 1996

24. Reliance is also placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs N.R. Banerjee and others 1997 (9) SCC 287. This decision arose out of a direction issued by the Tribunal to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee and to take confidential reports of the eligible candidates for a particular year. This direction was issued as the employees were to retire in the year 1994. Therefore, the confidential report of 1993 was to be looked into and not the confidential reports of 1994. This judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 138 - Full Document
1   2 Next