Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.24 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985
297. Even though, in a later decision in S.
Sundaram Pillai [S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.
Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591] , this Court had
adverted to this judgment when it came to culling
out the propositions, the aspect about an
Explanation, widening the scope of a provision,
has not been expressly spelt out. It must be
remembered that the legislature speaks through
the medium of the words it uses. The
nomenclature, it gives to the device, cannot
control the express language, which it employs. If,
in effect, in a particular case, an Explanation does
widen the terms of the main provision, it would
become the duty of the court to give effect to the
will of the legislature.
Zakiya Begum & Ors vs Shanaz Ali & Ors on 9 August, 2010
5. Reliance is also placed on Zakiya Begum v. Shanaz
Ali; (2010) 9 SCC 280, to further elucidate the role of
Explanation, which can only harmonize with or clear up any
ambiguity in the main section and normally permits no
widening of its ambit. Reading Explanation (2), it is pointed out
that the same would militate against the substantive provision
Patna High Court CWJC No.11470 of 2022 dt.13-07-2023
39/91
which requires the roster points to be conceded to the recruits
from the various sources without reference to the date of
appointment. It is pointed out that in the present case, the
notification with respect to the direct recruits was initiated, as
asserted by the High Court on 14.02.2017, when the posts to
which recruitment was contemplated was ascertained, and
insofar as the 65% and 10% quotas, the notification was brought
out on 16.01.2018. Both the direct recruits and the promotees;
65% & 10%, were appointed within a year, respectively on
28.05.2018, 10.12.2018 and 25.03.2019, in which context, there
should be inter-se seniority conceded to the recruits through the
three streams as per the roster points, without reference to the
date of appointment.
Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors vs Reevan Singh & Ors on 10 February, 2011
6. It is emphasized with the aid of Pawan Pratap
Singh v. Reevan Singh; (2011) 3 SCC 267 that the words
'recruitment' and 'selection' have two connotations. The word
'selection' refers to the process which commences with a
notification inviting applications and ends with the appointment,
whereas recruitment has the connotation of the issuance of the
formal appointment order.
State Of U.P vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 14 January, 1992
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok
Kumar Srivastava; (2014) 14 SCC 720 relied on Pawan Pratap
Singh to hold that, though normally the determination of
Patna High Court CWJC No.11470 of 2022 dt.13-07-2023
40/91
seniority should be based on the date of substantive
appointment, the relevant service rules could provide for
seniority from a prior date; which Rule 16(e) without
Explanation (2) provides unequivocally. It is reiterated
emphatically that the Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules
provides for seniority inter-se, to the three streams based on the
roster points irrespective of the date of appointment and in the
present case all appointments having been made in the course of
12 months, there should be inter-se seniority based on the roster
points even if the roster points are taken on yearly basis in
accordance with the British Calendar.
Arti Kumari Singh And Ors vs The Patna High Court, Through The ... on 18 October, 2019
8. Shri Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the other 16 promotees under LCE, at the outset
pointed out that there can be no contention raised against the
eligibility of the 16 LCE promotees since the matter has been
settled by another Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No.
2345 of 2019 dated 18.10.2019, Arti Kumari Singh v. The
Patna High Court. The regular promotees under the 65% quota,
in the said case, had raised a similar contention which was
rejected by the Writ Court. The two petitioners herein, were also
aware of the same though they were not parties; but they chose
not to file any appeal from the cited judgment.
This Application Under Order Xiv Rule 8 ... vs Uni-Sole Pvt. Ltd. And Another [1999 Ptc ... on 11 November, 2011
In so far as the
contention raised under Rule16(c), Dinesh Kumar Gupta v.
High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan; (2020) 19 SCC 604
and Prem Narayan Singh v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh;
(2021) 7 SCC 649 were relied on. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had categorically held and reiterated that inter-se seniority
amongst candidates promoted through LCE has to be
determined on the basis of merit, especially when the said
measure is an incentive given to the junior officers to be
promoted, based on their performance in the LCE. It is argued
that Rule 5(c) speaks of the recruitment year which is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.11470 of 2022 dt.13-07-2023
43/91
aligned with the British Calendar year and Explanation (2) has
to be read in consonance with the reference to the recruitment
year in Rule 5(c). It is urged that the year prescribed under
Explanation (2), which refers to the British Calendar Year starts
'from' the date of selection/ appointment process is set in
motion; which has reference to the 12 months from which the
selection is commenced. Viewed in that perspective, if the direct
recruits' selection commenced on 14.02.2017, the promotions
for which selection was notified on 16.01.2018 has to be found
to be within 12 months from the initiation of the process for
direct recruitment. In that event, the seniority of direct recruits
would have to be interspersed with that of the promotees.
Prem Narayan Singh vs Honble High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2021
In so far as the
contention raised under Rule16(c), Dinesh Kumar Gupta v.
High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan; (2020) 19 SCC 604
and Prem Narayan Singh v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh;
(2021) 7 SCC 649 were relied on. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
had categorically held and reiterated that inter-se seniority
amongst candidates promoted through LCE has to be
determined on the basis of merit, especially when the said
measure is an incentive given to the junior officers to be
promoted, based on their performance in the LCE. It is argued
that Rule 5(c) speaks of the recruitment year which is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.11470 of 2022 dt.13-07-2023
43/91
aligned with the British Calendar year and Explanation (2) has
to be read in consonance with the reference to the recruitment
year in Rule 5(c). It is urged that the year prescribed under
Explanation (2), which refers to the British Calendar Year starts
'from' the date of selection/ appointment process is set in
motion; which has reference to the 12 months from which the
selection is commenced. Viewed in that perspective, if the direct
recruits' selection commenced on 14.02.2017, the promotions
for which selection was notified on 16.01.2018 has to be found
to be within 12 months from the initiation of the process for
direct recruitment. In that event, the seniority of direct recruits
would have to be interspersed with that of the promotees.
State Of H.P.& Anr vs M/S Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr on 26 July, 2010
To
further this argument, the learned Senior Counsel relies on State
of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers; (2010)
12 SCC 210, Bibi Salma Khatoon v. The State of Bihar; AIR
2001 SC 3516, Demesh Chandra Amba Lal Joshi v. State of
Gujarat; (2014) 11 SCC 759 all of which are with respect to
Limitation Act but furthers the interpretation given as to the
British Calendar commencing from the date of notification of
selection/appointment. The definition of word 'from' is also
pointed out from the 3rd Edition of P. Ramanatha Aiyar's
Advanced Law Lexicon (Volume-II).