Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.97 seconds)Baleshwar Dass & Ors. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors. Etc on 19 August, 1980
Although Krishna Iyer, J. in Baleshwar Dass's case
calls the directly recruited Engineer Students to be a
'relic of the Imperial days', nevertheless the system of
reservation of posts for the engineer Students served its
own purpose in attracting persons of undoubted talent and
outstanding merit to the Service and thereby promoted
efficiency, and it has also withstood the test of time.
Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 October, 1969
It would clearly be unjust,
as observed by Sikri, J. in Rabindra Nath Bose' case to
deprive the appellants of the rights which have accrued to
them. As a result of the G.O. Of April 19, 1950, although
initially the guarantee to the merit scholars who had passed
out from the Thomson College of Civil Engineering, Roorkee
in order of merit was in regard to appointment to the
guaranteed post, but later it was amplified into assuring to
the holders of such guaranteed posts like the appellants
preference in the matter of permanency and seniority. This
necessarily perpetuated some amount of injustice, as brought
out in the Report of Lal Committee, to the holders of non-
guaranteed posts i.e. the temporary Assistant Engineers, due
to permanent appointments having been given to the holders
of guaranteed posts
232
i.e. directly recruited engineer students in preference to
them, though they joined service earlier. There is, however,
nothing that can be done for the Court is faced with a fait
accompli. At times, the court is overtaken by the events. As
a matter of policy, the Government of the day thought that
it would bring greater efficiency and merit to the Service
if certain number of posts were kept reserved for the merit
scholars graduating from the Thomson College of Civil
Engineering, Roorkee, which in those days was the most
prestigeous institution of its kind in the country and was
later incorporated into the University of Roorkee. The
evidence about relevant consideration which prompted the
then Government into taking such a policy decision a long
time back may have been lost by passage of time but there is
always a presumption that every official act is done in good
faith.
N.K. Chauhan & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 1 November, 1976
Adverting to the oft-quoted observations of Chandrachud. CJ
in S. B. Pathwardhan's case that 'seniority cannot depend on
the inglorious uncertainties of confirmation' and to his own
in N. K. Chauhan's case that 'seniority, normally, is
measured by length of continuous officiating service' the
learned Judge observed that although an appointee to a
permanent post acquires certain rights which one who fills a
temporary post cannot claim, nevertheless. when the post is
not purely temporary or ad-hoc or of short duration or of an
adventitious nature, the holder of such temporary post
cannot be degraded to the position of one who by accident of
circumstances, or for a fugitive tenure occupies the
temporary post for a fleeting term. The learned Judge while
accepting that there was a distinction between permanent and
temporary posts inasmuch as permanency carries with it other
rights than mere seniority and promotion, brought out the
'propinquity in status' of permanent and temporary Assistant
Engineers in the special conspectus of the facts before him
and found no justification to hold that when Engineers were
appointed to temporary posts but after fulfillment of the
tests for regular appointment, including consultation with
the Public Service Commission, they were not appointed in a
substantive capacity.
K.R. Mudgal & Ors vs R.P. Singh & Ors on 30 September, 1986
See also: K.R. Mudgal & Ors. v. R.P.
Singh & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 531.
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
It was also observed relying upon
the decision of this Court in S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of
India & Ors., [1967] 2 SCR 703 that it would be highly
unjust to deprive the appellants of the rights which had
accrued to them as such. The learned Judges firmly repelled
the contention that even if the petitioners could not be
permitted to question the legality and propriety of the
impugned order of confirmation, they were still entitled to
claim seniority over the directly recruited Engineer
Students as per rules regulating seniority observing that:
R.S. Makashi & Ors vs I.M. Menon & Ors on 8 December, 1981
So also in R.S. Makashi & Ors. v. I.M. Menon & Ors., [1982]
2 SCR 69; Eradi, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench stated
that belated petitions cannot be entertained under Art. 32
of the Constitution.
S.B. Patwardhan & Others Etc. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 4 May, 1977
Adverting to the oft-quoted observations of Chandrachud. CJ
in S. B. Pathwardhan's case that 'seniority cannot depend on
the inglorious uncertainties of confirmation' and to his own
in N. K. Chauhan's case that 'seniority, normally, is
measured by length of continuous officiating service' the
learned Judge observed that although an appointee to a
permanent post acquires certain rights which one who fills a
temporary post cannot claim, nevertheless. when the post is
not purely temporary or ad-hoc or of short duration or of an
adventitious nature, the holder of such temporary post
cannot be degraded to the position of one who by accident of
circumstances, or for a fugitive tenure occupies the
temporary post for a fleeting term. The learned Judge while
accepting that there was a distinction between permanent and
temporary posts inasmuch as permanency carries with it other
rights than mere seniority and promotion, brought out the
'propinquity in status' of permanent and temporary Assistant
Engineers in the special conspectus of the facts before him
and found no justification to hold that when Engineers were
appointed to temporary posts but after fulfillment of the
tests for regular appointment, including consultation with
the Public Service Commission, they were not appointed in a
substantive capacity.
Ashok Gulati & Ors vs B.S. Jain & Ors on 17 December, 1986
I have no doubt in my mind that temporary Assistant
Engineers were entitled to the benefit of their seniority
reckoned according to the date of the order of appointment
to the Service in terms of r. 3 of the United Provinces
Service of Engineers (Buildings & Roads Branch) Rules, 1936,
w.e.f. the date of their absorption into the Service by the
Government in consultation with the Public Service
Commission i.e. from the date from which they became
'Members of the Service' within the meaning of r. 3(b) of
the Rules. I had expressed the same view in Ashok Gulati &
Ors. v. B.S. Jain & Ors., [1986] Suppl.