Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Deepak Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 30 September, 2011 cites

Union Of India vs M/S. A.D. Chakraborty & Co on 25 August, 2010

In A.K. Chakraborty (supra) was pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner to emphasis on recording of reasons in the matter of supersession in promotion. Placing reliance on this decision, it was submitted that when the petitioner occupied a higher merit position, he could not have been divested of the promotional post of Chief Engineer, PHE by way of allowing the respondent No.4 to supersede WP(C) 3205 of 2011 Page 16 of 21 him.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

E.P. Royappa's (supra) case was pressed into service to emphasis on the declaration of equivalence of rank, status, duties and responsibilities in respect of a post other than a cadre post. That was a case relating to Indian Administrative Service and the Court was concerned with IAS (Cadre) Rules under which the State did not have power to alter strength and composition of cadre. It was held that if the State Government wanted to appoint a member of the IAS to a non-cadre post created by it, it could not have done so without making a declaration setting out which was the cadre post to which such non-cadre post was equivalent in status and responsibilities. Referring to the provisions of the rules, it was held that the making of such a declaration was a sine-qua-non and was not an idle formality which can be dispensed with at the sweet will of the Government.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1821 - A N Ray - Full Document

A. K. Subraman & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 December, 1974

28. Above is not the position in the instant case. It is not a case of restructuring of the cadre and application of reservation policy to the restructured posts. The moot question is as to whether the post of Chief Engineer, PHE (Sanitation) is a cadre post or not. The decision in A.K. Subraman (supra) has been pressed into service to emphasis that the cadre can consist of both temporary and permanent posts. It was held that whenever, therefore, a vacancy arises in a permanent post or in a temporary post, it would be a vacancy in the particular grade and consequently the quota rule for promotion would apply. Thus, in the said case also the whole emphasis was on the quota rule to be applied in the promotional post. It was in that context it was held that in a cadre there may be even temporary post. Referring to this decision, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned AAG submitted that even if the post of Chief Engineer, PHE (Sanitation) is treated as temporary post but yet it will be a cadre post. However, what has lost sight of is the fact that before terming the said post to be a temporary post in the cadre of Chief Engineer, it will have to be made so by way of encadrement and not otherwise. This aspect of the matter will be discussed a little later.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 99 - P K Goswami - Full Document

N. Suresh Nathan & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 April, 2010

In N. Suresh Nathan (Supra), the Apex Court emphasized that if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules,upsetting the same would not be appropriate. Thus, the observation regarding following the past practice as a means of possible construction was in reference to the rules. But in the instant case unlike the case of Uken Pegu, nothing could be brought on record that the post of Chief Engineer (Sanitation) is a cadre post and that as per the past practice being followed in the department on the basis of the rules, the said post was being filled up without any distinction on the scores of rank, status, duties and responsibilities involved in both the posts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 95 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 3 May, 1996

In support of his submission, he has referred to the decisions reported in (1995) Supp 2 SCC 261 (Union of India Vs. A.K. Chakraborty), AIR 1974 SC 555 (E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamilnadu) and (2009) 14 SCC 656 (Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers' Association Vs. State of Rajasthan and others). On the other hand, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, in his usual persuasive persuasion submitted that both the posts being in equal rank and status involving duties and responsibilities akin to each other, the petitioner cannot make any grievance for his non-posting as Chief Engineer, PHE. He submitted that the petitioner cannot have any choice for a particular post out of the two posts.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K. Manickaraj vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 April, 1997

As in the case of K. Manickaraj ( Supra) in that case also, the issue before the Apex Court was as to whether the policy of reservation of posts for SC/ST can be applied at the stage of giving effect to Cadre restructuring. Referring to the particular provision in the Railway Establishment Manual it was held that the term "Cadre" generally denotes the strength of a service or a part of a service, sanctioned as a separate Unit. However, for the purpose of roster, an wider meaning has to been given to the said term so as to take within its fold the posts sanctioned in each grade. Reason for the same was that the enlarged meaning to the term "Cadre" in the posts involved in the Railway Establishment Manual were sanctioned with reference to grades. It was in that context, it was observed that even temporary, work charge, supernumerary and shadow posts created in each grades can constitute part of the Cadre.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1