Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (6.84 seconds)
B. Prabhakar And Ors. vs Secretary, M/O Defence And Ors. on 23 September, 2004 cites

State Of J&K vs Shiv Ram Sharma & Ors on 30 March, 1999

17. He also brought to our notice another latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999(3) SCC 653=1999(3) SLJ 315 (SC) in the case of "State of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma and Ors.", wherein it was held that, "It is permissible to the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. There is no indefeasible right in the respondents to claim promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed. There is no guarantee that rules framed by the Government in that behalf would also be favourable to them. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to a particular individual employee but with reference to the conditions of service as such.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983

In support of their contentions, the learned Counsel for the applicants have relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983(1) SLR 789 in the case of "Y.V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors." wherein it was held that, "Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 4(a)(1)(i)-Appointment/Promotion to the grade of Sub-Registrars - Panel required to be prepared on 1st September of every year - Amendment of Rule in 1977 taking away rights of promotion of Lower Division Clerks - Vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rule would be governed by the old rules and not by amended rules -Amended rules will be applicable to the vacancies which arose after amendment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 606 - Full Document

Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967

19. Thus, it is clear from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred cases that the applicants have no vested or indefeasible right to claim promotion to the higher post on the basis of the educational qualification prescribed under the old rules when the recruitment rules have been amended in the year 2002, before issuing the notification dated 10.9.2003 for filling up the post of Sr. Technical Assistant-A through DRTC-LDCE for the year 2003. Since the amended rules came into effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette of India i.e., on 13.7.2002 and the notification has been issued subsequently to fill up the post on 10.9.2003, the authorities are entitled to consider only those in service candidates who possess the said higher educational qualification prescribed permitting them to appear for the LDCE in respect of 25% quota of the posts reserved and the applicants who do not possess the said higher educational qualification are not eligible for consideration for the said promotional post under LDCE quota. We also agree with the submission made by the respondents that the post of Senior Technical Assistant-A being in the restructured cadre, it cannot be said that the said posts notified are to be considered as carry forward vacancies of the previous years. Apart from this fact, it is not the case of the applicants in all these O.As. that in respect of the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules in respect of the posts of Technical Assistant-A they have not been provided opportunity to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held in the previous years. On the other hand, the applicant in O.A. No. 1116/2003 has admitted in Para 4 Clause (3) that he had appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination against the notification during the years July, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, but he could not be selected during the relevant years. According to him, in the year 2002 when he was contemplating to appear for the said examination, the respondents have amended the rules by changing the Technical Assistant- A and thereafter the 3rd respondent issued notification dated 10.9.2003 proposing to fill the post of Senior Technical Assistant - A through LDCE for the year 2003. It cannot, therefore, be said that in respect of carry forward vacancies of previous years, the amended rules are sought to be applied. Further, the applicants are not entitled to contend that merely because they were not selected for the same post in the previous years, the unfilled vacancies of the previous years are to be filled only according to the un-amended rules, so far as they are concerned, irrespective of the fact that they may take restructured as Senior Technical Assistant - A prescribing qualifications required for the said restructured post under the amended rules, it cannot be said that the vacancies were notified in respect of the carry forward vacancies of previous years which remained unfilled in the previous selections held. We, therefore, find that the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants reported in, 1983(1) SLR 789 (SC) and 2002 (2) ATJ 420, are not applicable to the facts of the instant cases. The facts in those cases are also quite different from the facts of the instant cases. In the decision reported in, 1983( 1) SLR 789, it was found that the panel required to be prepared for promotion to the grade of Sub-Registrar on 1st September of every year has not been prepared as on 1st September 1976 in respect of the vacancies that existed at that time and only after the amendment of Rules in 1997 the said post is sought to be filled up taking away the right of promotion of Lower Division Clerks. It is on these facts it was held that in respect of vacancies existed prior to the date of amendment of the rules, the posts are to be filled up as per un-amended rules. In the other decision reported in, 2002 (2) ATJ 420, of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in respect of 5 vacancies of the posts of Director, occurred in 1999, no DPC was held to fill these posts on the ground that 20 posts out of 49 posts have been upgraded as Joint Director and new recruitment rules are yet to be finalised in terms of 5th C.P.C. It is on these facts it was held that the candidates who have been eligible for further promotion as per the existing recruitment rules cannot be made to wait indefinitely so that Government can make changes in the recruitment rules and then convene DPC meetings for new intermediate posts i.e. Joint Director's post and the recruitment rules which have not come into existence will have prospective effect. But in the instant cases, in respect of vacancies which arose in the previous years, selections were held providing opportunity to the applicants to appear for the written test during the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 for the post of Technical Assistant-A under LDCE quota of 25%. The applicants who could not be selected during the relevant years are, therefore, not entitled to contend that even under the notification issued in the year 2003 after the recruitment rules were amended, they must be permitted to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, according to the qualification prescribed under the old rules though they are not eligible to appear for the said selection under the amended rules on account of their not possessing degree in Science. Further, the Language in the amended Rules of 2002 clearly indicates that the amended rules are meant to apply to the existing personnel already holding the lower feeder posts. Since the educational qualification prescribed under the amended rules for the post of Senior Technical Assistant - A is by way of substitution of old rules, we find that the applicants are not entitled to contend that the said amended rules cannot be made applicable to them. Further this Tribunal is not entitled to interfere with the policy decision taken by Government by way of introducing necessary educational qualifications under the amended rules to meet organisational needs with definite element of public interest. We, therefore, find that the applicants in all these O.As are not entitled to the reliefs sought for by them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 421 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

The Commissioner, Corporation Of ... vs Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram & ... on 8 November, 1996

16. He also relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 1 SCC 253 in the case of "Commissioner, Corporation of Madras v. Madras Corporation Teachers' Mandram and Ors.". wherein it was held that, "Creation of, and prescription of qualifications for- Scope of judicial interference with - Direction to create a post or to prescribe the minimum qualifications for the post, cannot be given by the Court or the Administrative Tribunal as the matter is one of legal or executive policy of the Government."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 50 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1