Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
R. Poornima vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2020
1. All the above 83 Original Applications are taken up
together for disposal, as a common question of law
and facts are involved in all these cases. With the
consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts
are being extracted from O.A.No.060/846/2021
(Poornima Vs. UOI & Ors.) and the said case has
been treated as a lead case.
J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990
39. The applicant has further relied upon the judgement
passed by the three judges Bench of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the case of J.C. Yadav Vs. State of
Haryana, 1990(2) SCC 189 wherein it has been held
as follows:-
B.P. Jain And Associates vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 12 December, 1991
In B.S. Jain v. State of
Haryana, [1981] 1 SLR 233 the High Court set aside
the promotions made in pursuance of the relaxation
granted under Rule 22 placing reliance on the decision
of the Division Bench in B.S. Bansal's case.
Ashok Gulati & Ors vs B.S. Jain & Ors on 17 December, 1986
On appeal,
this Court in Ashok Gulati v. B.S. Jain, AIR 1987 SC
424 observed that the findings of the High Court that
the State Government could not have relaxed the
condition of passing the departmental professional
examination by taking recourse to Rule 22 which
conferred power of relaxation on the State
Government could hardly be sustained.
Jit Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 February, 1979
In Jit Singh's case (supra)
promotion of Inspectors to the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police was involved. Under the
Police Service Rules 1959 a Police Inspector having six
75
(OA No. 060/846/2021 and 82 connected OAs)
years' continuous service was eligible for promo- tion
to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The
State Government in exercise of its power under Rule
14 granting relaxation to Inspectors who had been
found fit for promotion, as a large number of
vacancies had occurred in the cadre of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and no suitable persons
having the requisite period of service were avail- able.
Promotions made pursuant to the relaxation were
challenged before the High Court. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the
petitioners before it were not qualified for promotion.
On appeal before this Court, the High Court's
judgment was upheld. This Court took the view that
since the appellants before it were not eligible for
promotion as their names were not included in the
Select List prepared by the Public Service Commission
and further as they had not completed six years' of
continuous service prior to the respondents, they were
not entitled to any relief. The appeal was accordingly
dismissed by this Court. While considering the
question of validity of relaxation, the Court made
observation that Rule 14 did not permit any general
relaxation of the nature ordered by the State
Government. The Court, however, did not examine the
matter in detail as it was of the view that since the
appellants in that case were not eligible for promotion
they could not question the validity of the
appointment of those who had been promoted on the
basis of relaxation being granted by the State
Government. The Court upheld the promotions in view
of the extra ordinary situation in which the State
Government made appointments iv derogation of
requirement of Rules.
Ram Sarup vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 May, 1984
40. The applicant has also relied upon the judgement
passed by the Guwahati High Court in the case of
M.K. Krishnamurthy Vs. Union of India,
78
(OA No. 060/846/2021 and 82 connected OAs)
reported as 2002(1) GauLJ 456 wherein the
Hon‟ble Court has relied upon the judgement passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup Vs.
State of Haryana and others, 1979 (1) SCC
Page 168 and Buddhi Nath Choudhury and Ors.
Vs. Abahi Kumar and Ors. , 2001 (3) SCC Page
328 and allowed the petition in favour of the
petitioner.
Buddhi Nath Chaudhary & Ors vs Abahi Kumar & Ors on 21 February, 2001
40. The applicant has also relied upon the judgement
passed by the Guwahati High Court in the case of
M.K. Krishnamurthy Vs. Union of India,
78
(OA No. 060/846/2021 and 82 connected OAs)
reported as 2002(1) GauLJ 456 wherein the
Hon‟ble Court has relied upon the judgement passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup Vs.
State of Haryana and others, 1979 (1) SCC
Page 168 and Buddhi Nath Choudhury and Ors.
Vs. Abahi Kumar and Ors. , 2001 (3) SCC Page
328 and allowed the petition in favour of the
petitioner.