Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.36 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Bihar And Others Etc vs Akhouri Sachindra Nath And Others Etc on 19 April, 1991
1990 SCC (L&S) 339] . The principle was reiterated by this
Court in State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath [State of
Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334 :
Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. Etc., ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors., State Of Orissa & ... on 7 April, 1998
Patnaik [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1998) 4
SCC 456 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1156] and consequently we
disapprove the norms on assessment of inter se seniority,
suggested in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar,
(2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] .
State Of Uttaranchal & Anr .... ... vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma ....Respond on 4 December, 2006
1991 SCC (L&S) 1070] and State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh
Page 37 of 60
// 38 //
Kumar Sharma [State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar
Sharma, (2007) 1 SCC 683 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 594] .
Pawan Pratap Singh & Ors vs Reevan Singh & Ors on 10 February, 2011
In Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh [Pawan Pratap
Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 : (2011) 1 SCC
(L&S) 481] , this Court revisited the precedents on the
subject and observed : (SCC pp. 281-82, para 45)
"45. ... (i) The effective date of selection has to be
understood in the context of the Service Rules under which
the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the
process of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement
or the factum of preparation of the select list, as the case may
be.
P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors vs U. Govinda Rao & Ors on 3 July, 2013
This view has been re-affirmed by a Bench of three Judges of
this Court in P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao [P.
Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao, (2013) 8 SCC 693 : (2014)
1 SCC (L&S) 690] ."
Ganga Vishan Gujrati vs The State Of Rajasthan on 21 August, 2019
Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J. speaking for the Court opined as
under : (Ganga Vishan Gujrati case [Ganga Vishan
Gujrati v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 16 SCC 28 : (2021) 1
SCC (L&S) 403] , SCC p. 52, para 45)
"45. A consistent line of precedent of this Court follows
the principle that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to
an employee from a date when the employee was not borne
on a cadre. Seniority amongst members of the same grade
has to be counted from the date of initial entry into the grade.
Ram Janam Singh vs State Of U.P on 25 January, 1994
In Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. [(1994) 2 SCC
622 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 716 : (1994) 27 ATC 166] this Court
reiterated that the date of entry into a service is the safest
rule to follow while determining the inter se seniority
between one officer or the other or between one group of
officers and the other recruited from different sources. It was
observed that this is consistent with the requirement of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was, however,
observed that if the circumstances so require, a group of
persons can be treated a class separate from the rest for any
preferential or beneficial treatment while fixing their
seniority, but, normally such classification should be by
statutory rule or rules framed under Article 309.