Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)
Shri Annasaheb Dattatraya Desai vs M/O Defence on 26 November, 2024 cites

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs R. Santhakumar Velusamy & Ors on 6 September, 2011

3. It has been submitted that the respondents illegally applied principle of reservation while bifurcating the post of HS-I 7 OA No.691/2015 and HS-II as on 01.01.2006 as well as while effecting further placements upto 14.06.2010. On 15.10.2012, the respondent No.1 circulated copy of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. R. Santa Kumari Vellusami holding that the principle of reservation is not applicable for upgradations. Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 28.05.2014 directing that principle of reservation is not applicable in the restructuring of cadre of Artisan Staff as per letter dated 14.06.2010 from 01.01.2006 to 14.06.2010.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 75 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Fateh Chand Soni on 12 December, 1995

7.1 Shri Shetty would further argue that the department has restructured the cadre of Highly Skilled to create two grades of HSK-I and HSK-II and, therefore, promoting 50% of HSK-II to HSK-I is a promotion. He submits that relaxation of trade test was given as a one time measure. He further submits that Government policy decision dated 01.12.2010 by which the new cadres were created has not been challenged by the applicants. Further, the order of Government of India, Ministry of Defence dated 14.06.2010 has also not been challenged by the applicants. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1 SCC 562,and on the judgment of Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 96 to argue that the applicants' promotion to HSK-I was a promotion and not upgradation simplicitor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 94 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta . on 26 September, 2018

7.1 Shri Shetty would further argue that the department has restructured the cadre of Highly Skilled to create two grades of HSK-I and HSK-II and, therefore, promoting 50% of HSK-II to HSK-I is a promotion. He submits that relaxation of trade test was given as a one time measure. He further submits that Government policy decision dated 01.12.2010 by which the new cadres were created has not been challenged by the applicants. Further, the order of Government of India, Ministry of Defence dated 14.06.2010 has also not been challenged by the applicants. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1 SCC 562,and on the judgment of Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 96 to argue that the applicants' promotion to HSK-I was a promotion and not upgradation simplicitor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 221 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Union Of India vs M.V. Mohanan Nair on 5 March, 2020

14. Admittedly, the OM dated 19.05.2019 has not been challenged by the applicants. Moreover, the MACP Scheme has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020)2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1. Since para 9 of the DoPT OM dated 19.05.2009 has not been challenged which empowers the DoPT to issue clarification/interpretation, it is not open for the applicants at this stage to say that promotion from HS-II to HS-I by giving them only one time relaxation from the trade test was not a promotion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 365 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Ahmedalli Abdulhusein Kaka And Anr. vs M.D. Lalkaka And Ors. on 18 February, 1953

This passage indicates that both the authority whose order is sought to be quashed and the persons who are interested in maintaining the regularity of the proceeding of which a review is sought should be added as parties in a writ proceeding. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ahmedalli v. M. D. Lalkaka (3) laid down the procedure thus :
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Shri Ashwathanarayana K L on 4 March, 2016

He has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru dated 04.03.2016 in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Shri Ashwathanarayana K.L.& Ors whereby the order of the Tribunal dated 14 OA No.691/2015 21.08.2014 in OA No.597-599/2014 to the extent of directing the petitioners to maintain status-quo of the grade of the applicants as on 21.04.2014 (if they have not been reverted) and their position on the promoted posts have to be continued, was quashed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1