Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)
Arvind Kumar Gupta vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 17 May, 2018 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Banerjee & Ors on 16 December, 1996

9. We may observe that the effect of model calendar for DPC vide DOPT's OM dated 08.09.1998 is applicable only for DPCs normally held for vacancies arises on year to year basis and are filled purely by considering the annual confidential reports of the employees. Whereas in the present case the promotion of the applicant was through the channel of LDCE for which the model calendar for DPC is not applicable. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the decisions of N.R.Banerjee (supra) and G.S.Bedi (supra) is not applicable in the present case as we find that in both the cases the promotion of the applicants solely based on their performance in the annual confidential reports and not on passing of any LDCE, and as such these judgments cannot strengthen/ buttress the claim of the applicant for antedating his promotion. The promotion of the applicant to the post of Head Clerk was made by his passing the LDCE and not by considering his ACRs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 138 - Full Document

G.S.Bedi vs Union Of India Through on 12 March, 2011

9. We may observe that the effect of model calendar for DPC vide DOPT's OM dated 08.09.1998 is applicable only for DPCs normally held for vacancies arises on year to year basis and are filled purely by considering the annual confidential reports of the employees. Whereas in the present case the promotion of the applicant was through the channel of LDCE for which the model calendar for DPC is not applicable. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the decisions of N.R.Banerjee (supra) and G.S.Bedi (supra) is not applicable in the present case as we find that in both the cases the promotion of the applicants solely based on their performance in the annual confidential reports and not on passing of any LDCE, and as such these judgments cannot strengthen/ buttress the claim of the applicant for antedating his promotion. The promotion of the applicant to the post of Head Clerk was made by his passing the LDCE and not by considering his ACRs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs S. K. Koul And Ors on 4 December, 2012

11. In the instant case we find that for the vacancies of the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 against 20% quota meant for LDCE, the LDCE was held in the year 2006 and vide order dated 28.6.2011 (Annexure A-5) the applicant was notionally promoted as Head Clerk/ Assistant with effect from 14.11.2006, as a special case, in terms of the order dated 10.02.2010 (Annexure R-1), which stipulated that "the Head Clerk/ Accountants/ Assistants working under the zonal heads of Hyderabad/ Bhopal/Jaipur, who have qualified the departmental examination held during March 2006 for promotion of UDC/SK to the post of Head Clerk/Assistant may be granted notional promotion w.e.f. the date of declaration of result in the zone of Hyderabad/Bhopal/ Jaipur". Thus, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of S.K.Dubey (supra) we are of the considered opinion that since the applicant has already been given notional promotion from the date of declaration of the result of LDCE i.e. w.e.f. Page 9 of 10 Subject: seniority on qualifying departmental examination 10 OA No.11/2013 14.11.2006, he is not further entitled for promotion from an earlier date i.e. from the date of occurrence of vacancy, as sought for by him.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - H Massodi - Full Document
1