Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)
Purna Chandra Kahili vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 8 September, 2022 cites

Mohd. Sartaj And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 January, 2006

32. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the case of Md. Sartaj and another versus State of U.P. and others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 315, Para 14 to 20, in support of the proposition that when the incumbent lacks requisite qualification there was no requirement of hearing as no prejudice would be caused to the employee. This ratio of the instant case would not come to the aid of the respondents as there appears to be two plausible interpretation of column 8 of the recruitment rules 1996 relating to reading of the essential educational qualification prescribed under column 7 with that of the in-service candidates classified under Column 8 or that of the deputationist categorically specified in Column 8.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 167 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Narendra Singh on 13 December, 2007

Respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another versus Narendra Singh (supra), in particular paragraph 32 and 33 thereof. The facts in the case of Narendra Singh show that the mistake was of the department; the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified, still a notice to show cause was served upon the employee. In these background facts the opinion of the Apex Court in paragraph 34 itself shows that notice was issued to the respondent employee, his explanation was sought and thereafter the order of reversion was passed. In the present case the 22 respondents have not issued any notice upon the petitioner before the decision to revert him had been taken. The petitioner had, on its own, made a representation during currency of the deliberations in the organization, which were delved upon at the intermediate level in the hierarchy of officials but no decision of the competent authority on his representation have been shown or brought on record in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 30th August, 2022. The present case presents two plausible interpretations of column 8 of the recruitment rules, 1996 on the requirement of essential educational qualification of B.Tech degree by a person who is to be promoted as an in-service candidate or from deputation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - C K Thakker - Full Document

S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980

"14. However, in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] this Court has also observed as under: (SCC p. 395, para 24) "In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non- observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1083 - O C Reddy - Full Document

H.L. Trehan And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 22 November, 1988

31. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon judgments in support of their rival stands. While petitioners has relied upon certain decisions on the proposition of the requirement of pre decisional hearing as indicated in the case of H.L Trehan (supra) and Sharwan Kumar Jha (supra), respondents have relied upon certain decisions which lay down that in case opportunity of hearing is a useless formality and the facts are admitted or undisputed the requirement of principles of natural justice can be dispensed with as it would not lead to a difference in the final outcome.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 210 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Shrawan Kumar Jha And Others vs State Of Bihar And Others on 13 November, 1990

31. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon judgments in support of their rival stands. While petitioners has relied upon certain decisions on the proposition of the requirement of pre decisional hearing as indicated in the case of H.L Trehan (supra) and Sharwan Kumar Jha (supra), respondents have relied upon certain decisions which lay down that in case opportunity of hearing is a useless formality and the facts are admitted or undisputed the requirement of principles of natural justice can be dispensed with as it would not lead to a difference in the final outcome.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 158 - Full Document

Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... vs K.G.S. Bhatt And Anr. on 29 August, 1989

6. Shrawan Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 330 (Para 3) It is submitted that if the interpretation accorded by the respondents is approved, petitioner, who was appointed as a draftsman and redesignated as a Technical Assistant in 2002 would remain on the same post for the entire career without any promotional avenues, whereas the Apex Court in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another versus K.G.S. Bhatt and another reported in (1989) 4 SCC 635 and Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain versus Union of India and others reported in (1990) Supp SCC 688 has categorically held that promotion is a normal incidence of service. A person recruited to an organization is recruited for a whole career and not to a post. Therefore, the person must be given enough opportunity for career advancement in the form of promotion. At least, two promotional avenues should be made available to any employee. It is submitted that even the learned tribunal in the impugned judgment at paragraph 29 as a post script has issued an advisory in that regard to the respondent authorities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 216 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 November, 1989

6. Shrawan Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 330 (Para 3) It is submitted that if the interpretation accorded by the respondents is approved, petitioner, who was appointed as a draftsman and redesignated as a Technical Assistant in 2002 would remain on the same post for the entire career without any promotional avenues, whereas the Apex Court in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and another versus K.G.S. Bhatt and another reported in (1989) 4 SCC 635 and Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain versus Union of India and others reported in (1990) Supp SCC 688 has categorically held that promotion is a normal incidence of service. A person recruited to an organization is recruited for a whole career and not to a post. Therefore, the person must be given enough opportunity for career advancement in the form of promotion. At least, two promotional avenues should be made available to any employee. It is submitted that even the learned tribunal in the impugned judgment at paragraph 29 as a post script has issued an advisory in that regard to the respondent authorities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 238 - M Rangnath - Full Document

M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 1 December, 2011

Reliance has also been placed on Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Gauhati & Ors reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 Para 40-42, 44. She submits that the Apex Court has, in the instant case, held that when fair hearing would make no difference no purpose would be served in remanding the case to the authorities.
Gauhati High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 229 - U Bhuyan - Full Document
1   2 Next