Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.52 seconds)
Manish Kumar Sinha vs M/O Home Affairs on 26 April, 2021 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Rajiv Yadav, Ias And Ors. on 21 July, 1994

However, in the present case, the contention of the applicant is that the principles of allocation do not ensure equitable treatment and therefore, challenged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Section 80 of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and hence, the said judgment relied upon by the 1st respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent apprehended that if the relief of the applicants is considered, it may lead to administrative chaos which would have the effect of unsettling the settled things.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 37 - K Singh - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007

Allocation is well governed by Cadre Allocation Rules.When it is a case of distribution, seniority should have been given due credence. The guideline of point of allocation based on roster block coupled with seniority would have made Act 2014 harmonious with the provisions of Act 1951. There was no strict construction in the P.S. Committee guidelines as to why seniority has to be overlooked while applying the roster theory. Our above views are based on the observations Page 31 of 59 OA No.1037/2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as under, in State of U.P. and Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007 in Appeal (Civil) No.1262 of 2004:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 28 April, 2006

17. Seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right. [See Indu Shekhar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 129, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Ors., [2003] 5 SCC 604 and Prafulla Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, [2003] 11 SCC 614 Infringement of the said right would be permissible only if there exists any rules validly framed under a statute and/ or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It cannot act in a vacuum. Any rule taking away such rights would deserve strict construction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 187 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003

17. Seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right. [See Indu Shekhar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 129, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Ors., [2003] 5 SCC 604 and Prafulla Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, [2003] 11 SCC 614 Infringement of the said right would be permissible only if there exists any rules validly framed under a statute and/ or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It cannot act in a vacuum. Any rule taking away such rights would deserve strict construction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Prafulla Kumar Das And Ors vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 7 October, 2003

17. Seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right. [See Indu Shekhar Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., [2006] 8 SCC 129, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Ors., [2003] 5 SCC 604 and Prafulla Kumar Das v. State of Orissa, [2003] 11 SCC 614 Infringement of the said right would be permissible only if there exists any rules validly framed under a statute and/ or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It cannot act in a vacuum. Any rule taking away such rights would deserve strict construction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 76 - V N Khare - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next