Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.74 seconds)
Dilip Routrai vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 19 May, 2022 cites

G S Srinivasa Rao Phadnis vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 2020

It has been argued that vacancies arising in one year cannot be 11 O.A.No. 260/00308 of 2021 carried forward and merged with the vacancies of any subsequent year, especially when there is availability of suitably qualified candidates against the unfilled vacancies and, to justify this argument, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision in the cases of G.Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. Vs. UOI, (1989) 3 SLR 648, Azimul Haque Vs. UOI & Ors, OA No. 4589/2017.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dr. Vishram Singh Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 July, 2003

Further, it was submitted that in the event of excluding the names of the officers wrongly included in the select list, the vacancies ought to have been filled up by the next eligible officer in the zone of consideration and, to strengthen this argument, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dr. Vishram Singh Yadav Vs. UOI, 2004 (3) SLJ 263, CAT, Lucknow Bench. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that since the three persons included in the panel list were not promoted due to ongoing punishment and disciplinary proceedings, the applicant being the next eligible SCS officer in the zone of consideration ought to have been promoted to IAS Odisha cadre and, in alternative, it was argued that even if the vacancies were carried forward, the respondents ought to have prepared the select list yearwise instead of clubbing the vacancies and prepare the panel list.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Virender Kumar Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 2001

In the case of Virender Kumar Verma Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA 1316/HR/2001, the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the O.A. holding that select list prepared by the Selection Committee and finally approved by the Commission holds good and remains operative till the meeting of the next Selection Committee to draw up a new selection panel is held meaning thereby the earlier select list shall remain alive and operative only till the date on which meeting of the next Selection Committee takes place. The earlier select list becomes inoperative on the date of the meeting of the subsequent Selection Committee. Hence, this case is of no help to the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Azimul Haque vs Union Of India And Ors on 16 March, 2022

It has been argued that vacancies arising in one year cannot be 11 O.A.No. 260/00308 of 2021 carried forward and merged with the vacancies of any subsequent year, especially when there is availability of suitably qualified candidates against the unfilled vacancies and, to justify this argument, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision in the cases of G.Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. Vs. UOI, (1989) 3 SLR 648, Azimul Haque Vs. UOI & Ors, OA No. 4589/2017.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Madhumita Bera (Panigrahi) & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 10 January, 2014

4. Applicant has filed rejoinder inter alia stating therein that if the stand of the respondents that once the select list is published the same cannot be altered in any circumstances is accepted then the process of holding review selection committee meeting provided under rules is nonest in the eye of law and to establish that such a submission of the respondents is not in accordance with law, the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 521/2021 disposed of on 25.11.2021 (Surya Madhaba Panigrahi Vs. UOI & Ors). It has been stated that the respondents follows up its vexatious premise of the select list being set in stone with a juxtaposition. It has been stated that the very fact that inclusion of the three officers in the panel 9 O.A.No. 260/00308 of 2021 provisionally who could not be promoted due to ongoing punishment and disciplinary proceedings gives a right to the applicant to seek promotion in the select list of 2019. The zone of consideration in terms of rules is three times the number of vacancy and 66 names were taken into the zone of consideration to ensure filling up of 22 vacancies and not 19 vacancies. Thus, the unfilled vacancy ought to have been filled up by the SCS officers whose name placed below the 22 SCS officers, whose names appeared in the panel list prepared by the Commission. The selection committee was well aware of the ongoing punishment and disciplinary proceedings against the three SCS officers. Since panel was provisional due to non-appointment of the three candidates, the selection committee ought to have hold review DPC and revised the selection list in such a situation.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1