Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)
Jameela vs James Joseph V on 17 August, 2015 cites

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

From the above it is clear that observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 6 were in the context of operation of percentage of reservation which percentage is referable to cadre strength. Hence for operating percentage of W.A. Nos.2014 & 2016 of 2015 -: 19 :- reservation, the Apex Court held that the concept of vacancies has no relevance. There cannot be any dispute to the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court. But Rule 185(3) does not provide for any percentage on the post or cadre rather Rule 185(3) relates to filling up of substantive vacancies in the ratio of 1:1. Rule 185(2) which provides for filling up of substantive vacancies in certain other posts by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 3:1 contains a proviso which is to the following effect:
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr on 30 October, 2001

"3. We fail to understand the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma & Anr. (JT 2001 (9) SC 266). Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle respondent No. 1 to claim for permanent employment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No. 1."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

A.A. Calton vs The Director Of Education & Another on 25 March, 1983

Similar view was taken in A. A. Calton v. Director of Education, (1983 (3) SCC 33 : AIR 1983 SC 1143). It is a well accepted principle of construction that a statutory rules or Government order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Where proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should normally be regulated by the then existing rules and Government orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended rules or the amended Government orders issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provision or by necessary intendment indicate that amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 252 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Mohanan vs Director Of Homeopathy on 26 July, 2006

The Full Bench ultimately held that notwithstanding the currency of the rank list prepared by the PSC in accordance with the recruitment rules in force prior to the introduction of the Special Rules 1999, the vacancies which arose subsequent to the amendment rules shall be filled up only in accordance with the Special Rules 12.4.1999. The following W.A. Nos.2014 & 2016 of 2015 -: 38 :- was laid down in paragraph 26:
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 41 - S Jagan - Full Document
1   2 Next