Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)

M V Sheshagiri vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 December, 2018

10. By placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) no. 6275/2016 titled 'M.V Sheshagiri v. Union of India & Ors.', he submits that the seniority of the officers has to be reckoned from the date they report for training. The petitioner having joined the training with the 44th Batch i.e. much before the DAGO appointed in the 45th Batch commenced their training, he cannot be assigned seniority with the 45th Batch, especially when it is an admitted position that he was relegated to the said Batch by the respondents themselves.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - S Narula - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Rawat vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2019

He further places reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4940/2011 titled 'Krishna Kumar Singh v. Union of India' to contend that the seniority of the DAGO is required to be fixed as per Rule 8(b)(ii) of the CRPF Rules, which prescribes that the inter-se seniority of officers has to be determined as per their merit position, which is calculated by the aggregate of the marks obtained by them at the time of selection and on the completion of their training. He, therefore, submits that the respondents cannot, by referring to the Standing Order No.01/2009, which is in the nature of executive instructions, deprive the petitioner of his due seniority to which he is entitled as per the Rules. Furthermore, para 3(vi) of the Standing Order would apply only to those officers who wilfully do not join the training or deliberately miss the training.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 83 - A M Sapre - Full Document

State Of Uttarnchal & Anr vs Madan Joshi & Anr on 13 May, 2008

In fact, para 18 of the decision in Madan Mohan Joshi (supra) relied Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 9 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 upon by the respondents itself shows that there was no requirement for the petitioner to implead any employee in the present writ petition. The observations of the Apex Court as contained in para 18 read as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sh.Arun Kumar Rao vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2010

11. Finally, he submits that while the petitioner's seniority was correctly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 9076/2020 Page 5 of 15 By:SAURABH RAWAT Signing Date:20.09.2024 10:19:39 reflected in the gradation list for the year 2014, the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally fixed his seniority with the officers of the 45th Batch of DAGO in the gradation list for the year 2015. The petitioner's seniority ought to have been fixed along with his original Batch especially when the respondents knowing well that he had joined service on 24.03.2013, granted him the benefit of Senior Time Scale w.e.f. 25.03.2017 at par with his batchmates from the 44(C) Batch of DAGO. By placing reliance on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. (C) 10303 of 2018, titled 'S.R. Arun kumar v. Union of India and Ors.', he contends that despite the petitioner being relegated to the 45th Batch for completing his basic training, his seniority position could not have been downgraded. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to re-fix the petitioner's seniority along with the DAGO from his original Batch i.e, the 44th Batch of DAGO, as per his merit position.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prashant Rai on 4 April, 2022

13. Further, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits as well. The petitioner having been relegated to the 45th Batch due to his inability to complete training on account of his injury, his seniority was correctly fixed at the top of the said Batch with which he had completed the training. He submits that as per para 3(vi) of the Standing Order No.01/2009 issued on 12.01.2009, once a trainee officer misses training for more than thirty days, irrespective of the reason of his absence, he forfeits his claim to inter se seniority along with his original batch. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly was not fit to complete training alongwith the 44th Batch and was consequently, relegated to the 45th Batch and therefore, in terms of para 3(vi) read with para 3 (vii) of the Standing Order, his seniority was rightly fixed at the top of the 45th Batch. Further, the petitioner's plea that the Standing Order No. 01/2009 dated 12.01.2009 is liable to be ignored is also misplaced as the said Standing Order which lays down the guidelines for fixation of the inter se seniority of the DAGOs in the CRPF has been issued in consonance with the Rules. This Standing Order has been relied upon by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SA no. 73/2024 titled 'Union of India v. Prashant Kumar Rai & Ors', wherein the Division Bench while allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India, accepted the respondents' plea that a candidate who had missed the training for more than thirty days on account of suffering from Tuberculosis would forfeit his seniority and could be assigned seniority only with the Batch with which he completed training.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1