Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.78 seconds)
Suraj Parkash Gupta And Others vs State Of J & K And Others on 28 April, 2000 cites

N.K. Chauhan & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 1 November, 1976

In our opinion, in view of the admission before us by all parties that there is no express rota rule, the decision of the High Court that 'rota' principle applied cannot be upheld. As held in N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, [1977] 1 SCC 308, by Krishna Iyer, J. there is no question of a quota being necessarily 'inter-locked' with rota. It is not necessarily inscribed within every quota rule.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 142 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Keshav Chandra Joshi And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 November, 1990

In Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, [1992] Suppl. 1 SCC 272, it was held that previous promotee would get regularisation from date of occurrence of vacancy in promotion quota. Before that, it would be fortuitous. Of course, excess promotees could not claim seniority if the quota rule had not broken down because they occupy the seats of direct recruits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 263 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

V. Sreenivasa Reddy And Ors vs Govt. Of A.P. And Ors on 5 October, 1994

The direct recruits have strongly relied upon the decision in V. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., [1995] Suppl. 1 SCC 572. But this decision cannot be of any help to them. In that case Rule 10 and Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate service Rules were referred to. It was pointed that the promotee's temporary service under Rule 10 (i.e. service rendered, in a post to which the officer was not appointed according to Rules), could not be counted on facts, because there was no order of retrospective regularisation. In fact, this Court accepted that if regularised under Rule 23 of the A.P. Rules, the temporary appointees could have been regularised from an anterior date. (This Court then referred to certain rulings which said that direct recruits could not count ad hoc service rendered by them before their regular selection). On facts, this Court held that the Government had relaxed the rule regarding P.S.C. consultation but had placed the promotees below the direct recruits and this need not be interfered with. This case far from supporting the direct recruits, supports the promotees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 88 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next