Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.84 seconds)Bimlesh Tanwar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 March, 2003
60. But the ratio laid down in P.S.Ghalaut by a two member Bench of the Supreme Court was held to be not a good law in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana [(2003) 5 SCC 604]. As seen from paragraph 13 of the decision in Bimlesh Tanwar, two contentions were raised before the High Court. The second was whether the seniority of the selectees had to be determined as per roster points or as per the order of merit. From paragraphs 33 to 37, the Supreme Court dealt with the aforesaid question. Paragraphs 33 to 37 of the decision in Bimlesh Tanwar read as follows:-
P.S Ghalaut vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 August, 1995
7. The said representation of R.Balakrishnan was rejected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by an order dated 20.12.2004 on the short ground that the roster point by itself determined the seniority position of the candidates selected for appointment, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in P.S.Ghalaut vs. State of Haryana [AIR 1996 SC 351].
R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995
In Ajit Singh (II), the decision of this Court in R.K. Sabharwal case has, thus, been explained.
P.V. George & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 23 January, 2007
In P.V.George vs. State of Kerala [(2007) 3 SCC 557], the Supreme Court held that "the law declared by a court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically". The Supreme Court was conscious of the fact, as seen from paragraph 19 of the report in P.V.George, that when the doctrine of stare decisis is not adhered to, a change in the law may adversely affect the interest of citizens. But still the Supreme court held that the power to apply the doctrine of prospective overruling (so as to remove the adverse effect) must be exercised in the clearest possible term.
Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995
(i) In Union of India vs. Virpal Singh [(1995) 6 SCC 684], the Supreme Court upheld the stand taken by the Railways that reserved category candidates who got promotion at roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general category candidates who got promoted at a later point of time to the same level. The Court held that the State was entitled to provide, what came to be known in popular terms as the "catch up rule" enabling the senior general category candidates who got promoted later, to claim seniority over and above the roster point promotee who got promoted earlier.
Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 1996
(ii) The catch up rule formulated in Virpal was approved by a three member Bench in Ajit Singh Januja vs. State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715]. This case came to be known as Ajit Singh (I).
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
(iii) But, another three member Bench took a different view in Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana [(1997) 6 SCC 538] and held that while the rights of the reserved candidates under Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) were fundamental rights, the right to promotion was a statutory right and that therefore, the roster point promotees have to be given seniority on the very same basis as those having continuous officiation in a post.
Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999
(iv) Since Jagdish Lal took a view contrary to the views expressed in Virpal Singh and Ajit Singh (I), the State of Punjab filed Interlocutory Applications before the Supreme Court, seeking clarifications. These Interlocutory Applications were placed before a Constitution Bench comprising of 5 Judges, in view of the fact that two Benches of coordinate jurisdiction (both three member Benches) had taken diametrically opposite views. The decision rendered by the larger Bench of 5 Judges on these Applications came to be known as Ajit Singh (II), in Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209].
Union Of India vs Ramesh Ram & Ors on 7 May, 2010
65. Another facet of the right of the reserved category candidates who are selected on the basis of their own merit and allotted to the general turn, came up for consideration, though in a different context, before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram [(2010) 7 SCC 234]. The decision in Ramesh Ram arose out of a selection held by the Union Public Service Commission to three All India Services, 15 Group-A Services and 3 Group-B Services. The question that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court as seen from paragraph 3 of the decision was follows: