Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.55 seconds)A. Vema Reddy vs Controller General Of Defence ... on 20 July, 2001
8. It is trite that since the promotional post of Deputy Traffic Manager in terms of Recruitment Regulations has to be filled up by the method known as 'promotion by Selection' the process necessarily involves assessment of relative merits of candidates who come under zone of consideration. It is true that seniority in feeder post is one of the important factors for making promotions when the recruiting agency has to adopt the method of seniority - cum-merit or seniority -cum-suitability. But, seniority would have only a marginal role to play where the post has to be filled by way of selection. Speaking for a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, one of us (S.R.Nayak, J) A. VEMA REDDY v. CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, NEW DELHI AND ORS., (2001) 5 ALD 131(DB) observed:-
Union Of India vs Mohan Lal Capoor & Others on 26 September, 1973
(d) In assessing the merits of employees on comparative basis for the purpose of principles laid down in Clauses (a) and (c), the ability, energy, initiative, integrity, sense of responsibility, etc., of the employee concerned shall be taken into consideration for a period of time (when possible, for not less than three years) and judgment shall be formed wherever possible, after carefully considering the reports of three different superior officers;
Chief Settlement Commissioner, ... vs Om Parkash & Ors, Etc on 5 April, 1968
In the case of CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS. v. ON PARKASH AND ORS., the Apex Court held as follows:
State Of Haryana Etc. Etc vs Shamsher Jang Bahadur Etc. Etc on 19 April, 1972
In the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. SHAMSHER JANG SHUKLA, the Apex Court observed thus:
Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967
"7. It may be noted that herein we are dealing only those who were promoted from the cadre of clerks in the Secretariat. The first question arising for decision is whether the Government was competent to add by means of administrative instructions to the qualifications prescribed under the Rules framed under Article 309. The High Court and the courts below have come to the conclusion that the Government was incompetent to do so. This Court has rule in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, that while the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by administrative instructions, if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions, if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. Hence we have to see whether the instructions with which we are concerned, so far as relate to the clerks in the Secretariat amend or alter the conditions of service prescribed by the rules framed under Article 309. Undoubtedly the instructions issued by the Government add to those qualifications. By adding to the qualifications already prescribed by the rules, the Government has really altered the existing conditions of service. The instructions issued by the Government undoubtedly affect the promotion of concerned officials and therefore they relate to their conditions of service. The Government is not competent to alter the rules framed under Article 309 by means of administrative instructions. We are unable to agree with the contention of the State that by issuing the instructions in question, the Government had merely filled up a gap in the rules. The rules can be implemented without any difficulty. We see no gap in the rules.
1