Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
K. Pandi (Deceased) And Ors. vs The Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 12 April, 2005 cites

Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967

In this connection, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan , wherein it is held that the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory Rules by administrative instructions. Only if the Rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules provided the instructions not in consistent with the Rules already framed. In the case on hand, the rules are not silent while prescribing the qualifications to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers and as such, it is not necessary for this Court to draw any inference with the aid of the circular instructions as contended by the learned counsels for the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 592 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Shyama Charan Dash & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Anr. @ on 11 March, 2003

14. This Court is of the view that the above provision of law is a settled law, but as regards the facts on hand is concerned, no material is placed before this Court to exercise such a power to interfere with the order of promotion. Learned counsels for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Shyama Charan Dash v. State of Orissa, 2003 SCC (L&S) 449 to contend that the difference in the scale of pay should not be considered for the purpose of determining the qualification to the higher cadre. As discussed already, in the instant case, the petitioners do not even satisfy the required qualification as envisaged under Rule 4 of the Service Rules and the respondents 4 and 5 are not claiming their promotions solely on the basis of difference in scale of pay in their cadre. Since the respondents 4 and 5 having acquired the necessary qualification as per Rule 4 of the Service Rules, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - D Raju - Full Document

Rajesh D. Darbar & Ors vs Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni & Ors on 6 August, 2003

15. Learned counsels also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh D. Darbar v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni, and would contend that merely because the order of promotion of the respondents 4 and 5 was subsequently confirmed by the Government, their claim should not be rejected and the relief should be moulded. The above decision can be applied only if the petitioners make out a case to consider their names for the purpose of promotion. As discussed already, the petitioners cannot have any preferential claim over respondents 4 and 5 in the matter of promotion and asuch, the above decision is not applicable to the facts on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 69 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1