Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 23 February, 2010 cites

S.P. Biswas And Others Etc vs State Bank Of India And Others on 27 August, 1991

6. Neither of the counsels has cited any judgment on the aspect of two channels of promotion for a single post. However, I find that the Supreme Court in S.P. Biswas Vs State Bank of India AIR 1991 SC 2039 was considering the same policy as it stood then and the material terms whereof under challenge now were the same even then. The counsel for the respondent no.1 Bank has also stated that the policy under challenge applies to all nationalized banks. The Supreme Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - J S Verma - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors on 8 September, 1981

Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni 1981 II LLJ 433 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that "Mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. A right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not..."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 120 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Reserve Bank Of India & Ors vs C.N. Sahasranaman & Ors on 30 April, 1986

11. There is yet another reason which prevails with me for declining the relief to the petitioner. If the relief claimed by the petitioner is to be granted, this court will necessarily have to strike down the promotion through the normal channel and through which channel the respondents 7 to 10 and 12 were promoted. The petitioner cannot be entitled to the said relief without impleading and serving as parties the persons to be affected thereby. The Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India Vs C.N. Sahasranaman AIR 1986 SC 1830 has held that "Whether there has been denial of equality of the view of promotion or any constitutional right infringed or not cannot be judged, where interest of large number of people are concerned, in the abstract. Vast majority, indeed the overwhelming majority of the workmen are in favour of the scheme as evolved by the Bank as modified as it would be apparent from the submissions urged on behalf of All-India Reserve Bank Employees' Association impleaded as party-respondent in this appeal". It WP(C)3471/2002 Page 9 of 13 was further held that it has to be borne in mind that in service jurisprudence there cannot be any service rule which would satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to the majority of the employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touch-stone.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 55 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Suneeta Aggrwal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 February, 2000

12. I had during the hearing also inquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner would not be estopped from challenging the aforesaid policy after having taken a chance and having been considered through both the channels of promotion. Though the counsel for the petitioner contended otherwise, the counsel for the respondent has relied on i. Suneeta Aggarwal Vs State of Haryana 2000(I) CLR 825 (SC) ii. Union of India Vs N. Chandrasekharan AIR 1998 SC 795 iii.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs N. Chandrasekharan & Ors on 29 January, 1998

12. I had during the hearing also inquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner would not be estopped from challenging the aforesaid policy after having taken a chance and having been considered through both the channels of promotion. Though the counsel for the petitioner contended otherwise, the counsel for the respondent has relied on i. Suneeta Aggarwal Vs State of Haryana 2000(I) CLR 825 (SC) ii. Union of India Vs N. Chandrasekharan AIR 1998 SC 795 iii.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 115 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995

Chandrabhan Singh Vs lafaullah Khan AIR 1978 SC 1814 v. Om Prakash Shukla Vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla AIR 1986 SC 1043 vi. Madan Lal Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1995 SC 1088 vii.Utkal University Vs Dr.Nrusingha Charan Sarangi JT 1999 (1) SC 101 WP(C)3471/2002 Page 10 of 13 to contend that the petitioner is so estopped. In my view also, the petitioner after having availed a chance and after being unsuccessful is not entitled to challenge the procedure / policy which he had admittedly availed and in which he remained unsuccessful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 457 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Utkal University Etc vs Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi And Ors on 7 January, 1999

Chandrabhan Singh Vs lafaullah Khan AIR 1978 SC 1814 v. Om Prakash Shukla Vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla AIR 1986 SC 1043 vi. Madan Lal Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1995 SC 1088 vii.Utkal University Vs Dr.Nrusingha Charan Sarangi JT 1999 (1) SC 101 WP(C)3471/2002 Page 10 of 13 to contend that the petitioner is so estopped. In my view also, the petitioner after having availed a chance and after being unsuccessful is not entitled to challenge the procedure / policy which he had admittedly availed and in which he remained unsuccessful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Praveen Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 November, 2000

Moreover the Supreme Court in Praveen Singh (supra) was concerned with the written test being reduced to the only method for determining eligibility for the interview and the selection being made as per the result of the interview only. It was in that context that the Supreme Court held the policy to be bad. The same is not the position here. In the present case only 30% weightage is given to the interview and the cumulative marks of the professional/educational qualification, appraisal and interview have been taken into consideration for giving the rankings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 138 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next