Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)B. V. Sivaiah & Ors vs K. Addanki Babu & Ors on 17 July, 1998
16. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Judgment of the learned single Judge is in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of B.V. Sivaiah (supra). The observations produced above leave no manner of doubt that the promotions when have to be made on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit, the same had to be made irrespective of marks to be obtained by the concerned candidate in the "Selection Process". The performance of an employee would only be relevant in case the selection is to be made on the basis of Merit-cum-Seniority. Much emphasis was placed by the learned Counsel for the Bank, on the proposition that the Bank is entitled to provide a Bench Mark. There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition of law. An employer is certainly entitled to lay down a bare minimum eligibility criterion, which a candidate must possess. But once the candidate crosses the Bench Mark, the promotion has to be on the basis of the seniority of the candidate irrespective of the better merit of the junior. It is an admitted fact that the 'Selection Process' is not the Bench Mark. It is undisputed that the promotions have been made on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the 'Selection Process'. Clearly, therefore, promotions have been made on the basis of 'Merit-cum-Seniority', which is contrary to the statutory rules.
State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974
Sri Jagathigowda, C.N.& Ors vs Chairman Cauvery Gramina Bank& Ors on 31 July, 1996
v) Sr. Jagathigowda and Ors. v. Chairman, Cauvery Gramin Bank and Ors. reported in AIR 1996, Supreme Court, Page 2733.
State Of Kerala & Anr vs N. M. Thomas & Ors on 19 September, 1975
The meaning of the term 'Seniority-cum-Merit' has been succinctly set out in the case of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas reported in 1976 (1) SLR 805 (SC) as follows:
Union Of India & Ors vs Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan & Anr on 28 July, 2000
17. Similar observations have been made by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Lt. Gen Rqjendra Singh Kadyan wherein it has been held:
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sher Singh & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 21 January, 1998
11. The learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that the identical issue has been decided by the same Court in a writ petition being WP 13951 (W) of 1998 by a Judgment and order dated 14th June, 2002. However, the learned Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the aforesaid Judgment would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sher Singh and Ors. v. Surinder Khanna and Ors. reported in 1998 (7) SCALE, page 447.
Section 30 in THE REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT, 1976 [Entire Act]
1