Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 156 in Maharashtra Police Act [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in Maharashtra Police Act [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
P. Mohan Reddy Etc vs E.A.A. Charles And Ors on 16 February, 2001
8(2006) 6 SCC 36
46/52
::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2016 00:01:00 :::
ssm 47 1-wp-4078-15 gp-judgment-27-12-16.sxw
57 The Supreme Court in P. Mohan Reddy (Supra), has in fact
reiterated the aspect of issue of seniority. By this amended rule, there
is no disturbance to the seniority in Police force, which is based upon
the date of appointment of joining the Police force. It is wrong to
observe that, any seniority would be predetermined, based upon this
amended rule 3(a) as the amended rule is prospective in nature.
Union Of India vs R. Bhusal on 12 July, 2006
(Union of India Vs. R. Bhusal8).ig
56 We are declined to accept that the present amended rule,
is contrary to the provisions of any earlier circular and/or any State
policy. The Constable, who have put in more than 20 or 25 years of
service and/or the Police Naik and/or Havaldar who have put in only
10 years of service, but still permitted to appear in qualifying
examinations only to the extent of 25% is not against the law. The
importance is given to the seniority of the Police Constables, and
therefore, such rule on the contrary, takes care of every aspects of
Department and the Police personnel. This is in the background that
there is no challenge made and/or raised by the junior Police
personnel's, who have been permitted to appear in the examination.