Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)

V.T. Khanzode & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 5 March, 1982

3. The respondents however, point out that the staff regulations governing the petitioners arc not statutory in nature, as held by the Supreme Court in V.T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India (1982-I-LLJ-465). They constitute only a contract between the parties. Regulation 29 states that all appointments and promotions are in the discretion of the first respondent Bank, and notwithstanding an employee's seniority, in a grade, he has no right to be appointed, or promoted, to any particular post or grade. In any event, the confirmation of the petitioners in the cadre of Statistical Assistants was due to mistake on the part of the respondents, when they inadvertently overlooked the nature of the appointment, and the rights of seniors all over India. The mistake was rectified, and the injustice done to the seniors remedied by reverting the petitioners under Ext.P3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 142 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

K.B. Sharma S/O Sri Ram Swarup vs Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow ... on 16 August, 1967

9. Similar is the ratio in K.B. Sharma v. Transport Commissioner, (AIR) 1968 All. 276. The learned single judge of the High Court of Allahabad was dealing with a case where a junior officiating Head Clerk was mistakenly confirmed in that post while senior officiating Head Clerks remained to be confirmed. These latter, though confirmed subsequently, were treated as senior in the seniority list. The question was if they could be treated as senior, despite their confirmation being subsequent.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1