Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)
Anil Kumar Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 May, 2025 cites

Bobindra Kumar vs Union Of India on 27 August, 2019

29. To begin with, on the question of delay in approaching the Court to challenge the seniority list, we refer to the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Shukla (supra), where the Supreme Court dealt Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2834/2022 Page 11 of 19 By:NEELAM Signing Date:19.05.2025 17:54:00 with the issue of entertaining the petition challenging a long standing seniority filed at a belated stage and held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973

Dr B.S. Chauhan, J., after considering the question of entertaining the petition despite long-standing seniority filed at a belated stage discussed more than a dozen cases on the point including Constitution Bench judgments [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 137 and Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110] and ultimately in para 30 observed that a seniority list which remains in existence for more than three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. It is also recorded in para 30 that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. Para 30 is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 483-84)
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 254 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968

Dr B.S. Chauhan, J., after considering the question of entertaining the petition despite long-standing seniority filed at a belated stage discussed more than a dozen cases on the point including Constitution Bench judgments [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 137 and Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110] and ultimately in para 30 observed that a seniority list which remains in existence for more than three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. It is also recorded in para 30 that in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond period of three to four years he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation. Para 30 is reproduced below : (SCC pp. 483-84)
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 562 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

K.R. Mudgal & Ors vs R.P. Singh & Ors on 30 September, 1986

30. From the above decision it is manifest that a Seniority List, which is unchallenged for 3-4 years could be assailed by explaining delay and laches in approaching the Court. In this regard, we notice that vide Order dated 15.02.2022, the petitioners were directed to file an affidavit clearly stating as to when the petitioners came to know about the Combined Seniority List dated 01.04.2017. The petitioners, in their affidavit, have stated that the petitioners did not have a hint or knowledge of the Seniority List until the DPC proceedings for promotion to the rank of Assistant Commandant were being initiated by the respondents. However, from a perusal of the representation dated 16.07.2021 made by the petitioners, it is evident that perhaps the petitioner no.1 had filed a writ petition earlier in the year 2020.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 151 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1