Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Avani Chaudhary vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2014 cites

Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983

9. Though the learned counsel for the respondents tried to distinguish OA 3091/2010 from the present case on the ground that in that case vacancies were available, we find from the perusal of the order that the case is similar as there was a ban on recruitment by the government and, even if vacancies were there, recruitment could not be made and in that case also, the issue of revival of posts was involved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 606 - Full Document

The General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. on 1 September, 1971

The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents. We may in this connection refer to General Manager, South Central Rly., Secundrabad v. A. V. R. Sidhanti (1974) 3 SCR 207 at p. 212: (AIR 1974 SC 1755 at P. 1759). Repelling a contention on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in the case, this Court observed that the respondents (original petitioners) are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating to seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be noticed that relief is sought only against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by anyone individual against another particular individual and, therefore, even if technically the direct recruits were not before the Court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground. The contention of the respondents for this additional reason must also be negatived. The learned senior counsel for the applicant stated that in view of this judgment, there is no requirement to implead anybody as a private party other than the UOI.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 122 - Full Document
1