Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.51 seconds)M.G. Sharan And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 5 December, 1968
In the aforesaid unreported decision the argument of the petitioner, who had come earlier to this Court in M. G. Sharan and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. was rejected by a Bench of this Court on the view that "it was desirable for the State Government to have formally constituted a cadre and framed the rules for the recruitment, promotion etc. of the officers in the R. V. P. D. also under Article 309 of the Constitution. Unless this is done the petitioner has no legal right to claim for promotion to a post in the department.
Mohammad Shariff Suleman Nadaf And Ors. vs State on 24 July, 1968
(2) The other Full Bench decision of this Court is in the case of Md. Sulaiman and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1981 B.B.C.J. 513, where the question was the merger of the cadres of A.D.Ps. and D.S.Ps., who were promoted as Senior District Prosecutors. On the merger of both the cadres a common gradation list was prepared placing the promoted Senior D.Ps. above the direct recruits on the basis of the data of the appointment and not on the basis of the date of entry in the cadre and the question of their fitment in the integrated cadre was decided on consideration of their status and rank. The decision of the State Government to count the earlier experience of the respondents for the purpose of their seniority was held to be perfectly valid. We are, however, not concerned here with such a situation.
Rajendra Narain Singh And Others vs State Of Bihar And Others on 10 April, 1980
Reliance was placed by the learned Additional Advocate Ganeral on the case of Rajeadra Narain Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. . This was again a case from Patna involving the question of inter se seniority of promoted D.S.Ps. and direct recruits who were given officiating promotion. It was, held that determination of seniority on the basis of continuous officiation was valid. The principle of law laid down in this case was that in the absence of any legislation on the subject or a rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the State Government would regulate its public services in the exercise of its executive power. The determination of seniority on the basis of continuous officiation was valid and the gradation list based on this principle would not be challenged on the ground that an arbitrary date was taken as its basis or that it offended Article 14.
R.S. Makashi & Ors vs I.M. Menon & Ors on 8 December, 1981
Similar was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in R.S. Makashi and Ors. v. I.M. Menon and Ors. , which was a case of creation of Bombay Rationing Organisation by merging employees of the erstwhile Foodgrains Distribution Organisation and employees of the various other departments. The seniority list was prepared under the 1968 Rules framed in this regard laying down some principles to be applied for fixation of the inter se seniority which issued under Article 309. By a resolution various posts that existed in the former Civil Supplies Department were equated with posts in Bombay Rationing Organisation in the manner indicated therein. It was observed that it was open to the rule making authority to take a note of the relevant circumstances obtaining in relation to each department and determine with objectivity and fairness what rules should govern the inter se seniority and ranking of the personnel working in the concerned departments and the Courts will only insist that the rules so formulated should be reasonable, just and suitable; Proceeding further, it was observed that when personnel drawn from different sources are absorbed and integrated in no department, it is primarily for the Government or the executive authority concerned to decide as a matter of policy now the equation of posts should be affected. The Courts will not interfere with such a decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair, and is no manifest unfairness or unreasonableness has made out, the Court will not sit in appeal and examine the property or wisdom of the principle of equation of posts adopted by the Government.
Lila Kanta Barua And Ors. vs Collector Of Customs And Central ... on 18 October, 1979
Mr. P. S. Sharma also placed reliance on the case of Lila Kanta and Ors. v. Collector of Custom and Central Excise , wherein also the fixation of seniority after absorption of the staff from the princely State in the services of the Union Government on the basis of length of service after confirmation, instead of continuous or officiating service, was made the criterion and the Supreme Court refused to interfere on the reasoning that it was a letter of policy in which the Government must have discretion.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Shri Rameshwar Prasad (Dead) By L.Rs on 10 December, 1975
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Rameshwar Prasad A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 314, it was again held that when the Government had prepared the final gradation list after objective and through consideration of the various aspects of the career of the employees and the principles; which governed the list, the same could not be interfered with.
Dr. S.P. Kapoor Etc vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Etc on 2 November, 1981
22. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Mishra on the case of Dr. S. P. Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2181, where on the constitution of Himachal Pradesh Health Service after formation of the new State, certain doctors belonging to the Central Health Service opted for the State service and were appointed on the general side, the doctor who had been appointed to the Punjab Civil Medical Service (Grade I) post on 29-1-1965 and was inducted into the Specialists' grade in the Central Health Service with effect from 1-11-1966 would rank senior under Rule 10(a) (iii) and in accordance with the letter dated 9-7-1971 to those doctors who were in the Central Health Service on the date of its constitution on 9-9-1966 but had been taken in the Specialists' grade and G.D.O. Grade I respectively under the Central Health Service with effect only from 9-9-1968, under Rule 10(a) (iii) as inter se seniority of the officers drawn from the integrating States had to be determined only in accordance with Rule 10(a) (iii) of the Rules.