Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)Bank Of India vs Jagjit Singh Mehta on 22 November, 1991
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, AIR 1992 SC 519, in para-5 of which the following has been held:-
Smt. Chitra Mukundan vs Union Of India on 8 January, 2014
6. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant on instructions from the applicant stated that applicants case was similar to that of Smt. Chitra Mukundan (supra) and that she would be satisfied if the same benefits were extended to her as were extended to Smt. Chitra Mukundan by Honble High Court of Delhi. On going through the facts of the two cases, we find that both cases are similar. In fact, the applicant stood on a stronger footing inasmuch as her offer of appointment was cancelled without decision on her representations whereas in the case of Smt. Chitra Mukundan the respondents had once modified her posting from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Churchandpur, Manipur to Silchar, Assam and when she made another request for further modification, the same was rejected. Her candidature for the post of Principal was cancelled only when she did not join even at Silchar and made another representation for posting her to any of the KVS mentioned in her representation. The order of Honble High Court of Delhi has since been implemented by the respondents in the case of Smt. Chitra Mukundan.
M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 17 October, 2008
4.4 Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that in the meeting of the JCM of KVS held on 11.12.2012 the staff side had raised the issue about spouses not getting desired place of posting leading lot of discontentment in the transfer of teachers. This issue was deliberated upon and it was decided that staff side shall produce all Government of India orders to KVS for further examination and consideration of such request. Learned counsel has made available a copy of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting which is taken on record. Relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., AIR 2009 SC 904, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant had legitimate expectation that in view of the aforesaid discussions in the JCM her case would be favorably considered. However, the respondents withdrew the offer of appointment without deciding her representation or giving her an opportunity of being heard. The respondents counsel, however, rebutted this argument by saying that the discussions in JCM were about transfers of serving teachers whereas the present case was of appointment as Principal as a direct recruit. He stated that KVS employees could be posted anywhere in India.
1