Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.28 seconds)
Sh. Rajendra Singh vs Union Of India on 18 July, 2013 cites

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr .... ... vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma ....Respond on 4 December, 2006

According to Sh. Bhardwaj the seniority list dated 28.09.2012 has been prepared in compliance of these directions of this Tribunal and is in accordance with the Rules as well as judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma. On the basis of these arguments Sh. Bhardwaj stated that relief prayed for by the applicants should not be granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 208 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967

(2) In the seniority list dated 10.11.2004 the applicants of this O.A. were at Serial Nos. 327-320 respectively and respondents No. 4 to 8 were at Serial No. 339. 344, 343, 342 and 341 respectively i.e. junior to the applicants of this O.A. (3) Respondents No. 1 to 3 have applied different parameters for direct recruits and promotees in complete violation of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal Tandon & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. They have thus discriminated against the promotees and have violated Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. This order has been obtained by misrepresentation of facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 421 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Sqn. Leader R.K. Kashyap vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 22 January, 2008

7(b). He argued that it was a conscious decision of the Government to retrospectively divert EE (C) post falling under the quota of AEEs (C) respectively to the promotion quota of AEs (C). Orders of regular promotions of AEs to these posts and their dates of regular promotion have not been challenged by any one till date. The CPWD after taking into consideration the objections received to the provisional seniority list dated 14.08.2003 had issued a final list on 10.11.2004. This seniority list was confined only to those EEs (C) who had been promoted under 1954 Rules against vacancies occurring till 28.10.1996. According to him it was pertinent to note that this seniority list was issued after circulating provisional list and inviting objections. He stated that Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12914/2009 titled R.K. Kashyap Vs. UOI & Ors. vide order dated 27.07.2010 clarified that the respondents may prepare a supplementary seniority list in addition to the seniority list dated 10.11.2004. Learned counsel argued that this order of the Honble High Court cannot be construed to have given liberty or right to the official respondents to recast the seniority list completely disturbing the seniority position existing for around a decade.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh & Ors vs Devi Ratan & Ors on 18 November, 2009

A perusal of this order would reveal that Government clearly treated date of regular promotion as the deemed date relating to the vacancy for which DPC was held since it was a conscious decision of the Government to have retrospective diversion. Further, it is worth mentioning that neither the order of 03.11.1999 nor the order of 28.09.2001 was ever challenged by any one. In fact, the said order remains unchallenged till date. Relying on the Apex Courts judgment in the case of Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Devi Ratan & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 417 she stated that where promotion orders are not challenged, the seniority which is only consequential also cannot be challenged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 466 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next