Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Shri Baburao Sukhram Nagose vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2014 cites

Dr N.D. Mitra vs Union Of India on 23 May, 1994

6. The learned counsel further submitted that prior to 2001 the post of AWM/JTS were divided discipline/trade-wise. However, the Ministry of Defence vide order dated 9.4.2001 declared the cadre of AWM/JTS as mono cadre. On the basis of that decision the Recruitment Rules of 2001 were notified wherein in no trade /disciplines-wise distinction was made among the JWMs for the purpose of promotion to JTS of IOFS. According to the existing practice the JWM belonging to one discipline /trade carry transfer liability to another discipline or trade, for example, in various sections such as Yard and Estate, Material Management, Stores, Motor Transport etc. The learned counsel further submitted that by quashing and setting aside impugned promotion dated 30.06.2009 and 31.7.2009, the names of some of junior candidates would be deleted from the said orders. However, there were more than 100 vacancies of AWM/JTs against which these candidates would get adjusted. Pointing out the contradiction in the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit filed in OA 2288/2010 and that in the present case the learned counsel stated that at one place the respondents have justified the notification of a combined seniority list as the same was in accordance with the requirement of Recruitment Rules of 2002 and at another place, i.e. this case, they have taken a stand that reversion to the old system of discipline/trade-wise seniority list and recruitment was in accordance with the practice followed for a long time. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments:- Dr. N.D. Mitra and another Vs Union of India (1994) 4 SCC 474, D.P. Das Vs. Union of India and anothers (2011) 8 SCC 115, B. Premanand and others Vs. Mohan Koilal and others (2011) 4 SCC 226.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - K Singh - Full Document

Sc W. P. No. 3938 (W) Of 2014 Sandip Sanyal ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2014

6. The learned counsel further submitted that prior to 2001 the post of AWM/JTS were divided discipline/trade-wise. However, the Ministry of Defence vide order dated 9.4.2001 declared the cadre of AWM/JTS as mono cadre. On the basis of that decision the Recruitment Rules of 2001 were notified wherein in no trade /disciplines-wise distinction was made among the JWMs for the purpose of promotion to JTS of IOFS. According to the existing practice the JWM belonging to one discipline /trade carry transfer liability to another discipline or trade, for example, in various sections such as Yard and Estate, Material Management, Stores, Motor Transport etc. The learned counsel further submitted that by quashing and setting aside impugned promotion dated 30.06.2009 and 31.7.2009, the names of some of junior candidates would be deleted from the said orders. However, there were more than 100 vacancies of AWM/JTs against which these candidates would get adjusted. Pointing out the contradiction in the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit filed in OA 2288/2010 and that in the present case the learned counsel stated that at one place the respondents have justified the notification of a combined seniority list as the same was in accordance with the requirement of Recruitment Rules of 2002 and at another place, i.e. this case, they have taken a stand that reversion to the old system of discipline/trade-wise seniority list and recruitment was in accordance with the practice followed for a long time. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments:- Dr. N.D. Mitra and another Vs Union of India (1994) 4 SCC 474, D.P. Das Vs. Union of India and anothers (2011) 8 SCC 115, B. Premanand and others Vs. Mohan Koilal and others (2011) 4 SCC 226.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 98 - D Datta - Full Document

Bal Niketan Nursery School vs Kesari Prasad on 15 July, 1987

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal should not have entertained the petition unless the necessary parties i.e. respondent nos. 2 to 15 had been impleaded by the respondent no.1-applicant himself. More so, rejecting their application for impleadment by the Tribunal could not be justified as those persons were going to be adversely affected after the application filed by the respondent no.1 was going to be allowed finally. The impleadment of a party is permissible at any stage in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bal Niketan Nursery School Vs. Kesari Prasad, AIR 1987 SC 1970, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a party can impleaded at any stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 30 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1