Coal India Ltd. & Ors vs Saroj Kumar Mishra on 17 April, 2007
4.In AIR 2007 SC Pg. 1706 (Coal India Limited & Ors. V. Saroj Kumar Mishra), the Supreme Court, after referring to several decisions, has observed as hereunder:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016
Union Of India & Ors vs Sunil Kumar Sarkar on 28 February, 2001
(iii)Union of India and others vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Jal Board vs Mahinder Singh on 1 September, 2000
16.Following the said judgment, I have also held in the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.9264 of 2004 (N.Ganesan vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai) that when there was no charge pending against the petitioner therein as on the crucial date for drawing the panel for promotion, the contention of the petitioner that his name should be included in the panel of Quality Inspector for the year 1992 as on that date he was fully qualified and eligible and entitled for promotion needs to be accepted, since the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Mahinder Singh reported in 2000 (7) SCC 210 keeping in mind that as on the crucial date namely, 01.10.1992, the petitioner was eligible and within the zone of consideration. In the present case, as per Clause II(2) to Schedule-XI Part-A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, since the charge memo issued against the petitioner on 05.05.2017 has been stayed as it was issued with an afterthought to preempt his chance of becoming Additional Commissioner, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for his empanelment by drawing up of panel on 01.10.2016.
Bank Of India And Anr vs Degala Suryanarayana on 12 July, 1999
(iv)Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana reported in (1999) 5 SCC 762.
V.R.Muthuveerappan vs The Director General Of Police on 2 December, 2016
(ii)W.P(MD)No.11511 of 2016 dated 02.12.2016 (V.R.Muthuveerappan vs. The Director General of Police, Chennai and another).
N.Ganesan vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 20 April, 2010
16.Following the said judgment, I have also held in the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.9264 of 2004 (N.Ganesan vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai) that when there was no charge pending against the petitioner therein as on the crucial date for drawing the panel for promotion, the contention of the petitioner that his name should be included in the panel of Quality Inspector for the year 1992 as on that date he was fully qualified and eligible and entitled for promotion needs to be accepted, since the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Mahinder Singh reported in 2000 (7) SCC 210 keeping in mind that as on the crucial date namely, 01.10.1992, the petitioner was eligible and within the zone of consideration. In the present case, as per Clause II(2) to Schedule-XI Part-A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, since the charge memo issued against the petitioner on 05.05.2017 has been stayed as it was issued with an afterthought to preempt his chance of becoming Additional Commissioner, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for his empanelment by drawing up of panel on 01.10.2016.
1