Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N. Suresh Nathan And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 November, 1991
Almost an identical view has been taken by a Bench of
which two of us were parties in Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State
of Bihar [2002 (9) SCALE 813] = [JT 2003 (9) SC 333],
wherein this Court noticing the decisions in N. Suresh
Nathan (supra), M.B. Joshi (supra), Satpal Antil (supra)
and D. Stephen Joseph (supra) held :
Anil Kumar Gupta And Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 24 November, 1999
The said decision was followed in Satpal Antil etc. vs.
Union of India and another [(1995) 4 SCC 419], D. Stephen
Joseph vs. Union of India and Others [(1997) 4 SCC 753],
Anil Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Others [(2000) 1 SCC 128] and A.K. Raghumani Singh
and Others vs. Gopal Chandra Nath and Others [(2000) 4 SCC
30].
A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors vs Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors on 4 April, 2000
The said decision was followed in Satpal Antil etc. vs.
Union of India and another [(1995) 4 SCC 419], D. Stephen
Joseph vs. Union of India and Others [(1997) 4 SCC 753],
Anil Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Others [(2000) 1 SCC 128] and A.K. Raghumani Singh
and Others vs. Gopal Chandra Nath and Others [(2000) 4 SCC
30].
Pramod K. Pankaj vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 20 November, 2003
Almost an identical view has been taken by a Bench of
which two of us were parties in Pramod K. Pankaj vs. State
of Bihar [2002 (9) SCALE 813] = [JT 2003 (9) SC 333],
wherein this Court noticing the decisions in N. Suresh
Nathan (supra), M.B. Joshi (supra), Satpal Antil (supra)
and D. Stephen Joseph (supra) held :
Deepthi V.V., Staff Nurse, Taluk ... vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ... on 8 July, 2002
Therein, the petitioner was awarded seniority in the
case of Graduate Assistant Executive Engineer w.e.f.
17.6.1978 i.e. with effect from the date of his
appointment, as he had already acquired the qualification
of degree in engineering by that time. He was further
directed to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer
treating his claim as a graduate degree-holder Assistant
Executive Engineer with effect from 17.6.1978 but despite
the same, he had not been granted a weightage for his
service as Assistant Executive Engineer before he acquired
the degree qualification. The decision of the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court in T.R. Krishnan (supra)
must also be considered having regard to the factual
matrix obtaining therein. In the said writ petition, the
writ petitioners alleged mala fide against the authorities
concerned which also found favour of the Bench. We have
seen earlier that the Division Bench came to the
conclusion that the amended rule had no application in his
case as he had been treated to be a Graduate Degree-holder
Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 17.6.1978
and in that view of the matter, it was not necessary for
the Division Bench to go into the question of validity of
Rule 5.
Government Of West Bengal vs Tarun K. Roy And Ors on 18 November, 2003
[See also Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun
K. Roy and Ors., 2003 (9) SCALE 671]
The State as an employer is entitled to fix separate
quota of promotion for the degree-holders, diploma-holders
and certificate-holders separately in exercise of its rule
making power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Such a rule is not unconstitutional. The State may,
therefore, in our opinion, cannot be said to have acted
arbitrarily by giving an option to such diploma-holders who
acquired a higher qualification so as to enable them to
either opt for promotion in the category of degree-holder or
diploma-holder. Such option was to be exercised by the
concerned officer only. He, in a given situation, may feel
that he would be promoted in the diploma-holders quota
earlier than degree-holders quota and vice versa but once he
opts to join the stream of the degree-holders, he would be
placed at the bottom of the seniority list.