Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
G.Chandrasekharan vs The Registrar General cites

Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2000

28. But, unfortunately for the petitioners, the said decision may not be of any avail to them. There are two situations which may give rise to a dispute of this nature. One situation is where an appointment of a qualified hand is made by the appropriate authority to a sanctioned post, but on ad hoc basis. Another situation is where such appointment is made to a post which is not sanctioned, but is created as a temporary measure. Rudra Kumar Sain did not deal with the latter situation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 214 - Full Document

Debabrata Dash & Anr vs Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors on 11 March, 2013

31. But, unfortunately for the petitioners, direction No.14 contained in paragraph 10 of the decision in Brij Mohanlal, came to be considered in a later judgment of the Supreme Court in Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra Prasad Das [(2013) 3 SCC 658]. As seen from paragraph 2 of the said decision, the question that arose in Debabrata Dash was whether the service rendered in the Fast Track Court as Additional District Judge is to be taken into account while fixing the seniority after regularisation of service. In paragraph 42 of the said decision, the Supreme Court considered the effect of the decision in Rudra Kumar Sain. In paragraph 43, the Supreme Court referred to Brij Mohanlal and direction No.14 contained therein. In order to understand the scope of the direction No.14 contained in paragraph 10 of the decision in Brij Mohanlal, the Supreme Court paraphrased the said direction, in paragraph 43 of its decision in Debabrata Dash and thereafter, answered the issue in paragraph 44 squarely against the petitioners herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Delhi Judicial Services Assn. & Ors vs Delhi High Court & Ors on 1 May, 2001

43. Therefore, there are two distinguishing features in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, that make the ratio decidendi in Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association case inapplicable to the case on hand. These distinguishing features are (i) that our Rules use the expression "appointed", whereas the Maharashtra Rules use the expression "to work as", and (ii) our Rules make the direct recruits entitled to the same pay scale together with annual increments even during the period of training, while the Maharashtra Rules prescribed a lower scale of pay during the period of training. Hence, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association is of no assistance to the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 54 - Full Document

Balasaheb Vishnu Chavan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 February, 1984

The Bombay High Court took note of the statutory rules and the decision of the Supreme Court in Balasaheb Vishnu Chavan v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 2 SCC 675] and came to the conclusion that the direct recruits would reckon their seniority in the cadre from the date of appointment, even though they were asked to work as Additional District Judges. While reversing the said decision, the Supreme Court was faced with Rule 5(2)(ii) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment (Second Amendment) Rules, 1992. There were three methods of recruitment prescribed under the said Rule. Originally, the Rule prescribed only two methods of recruitment and clause (b) provided for a quota between promotees and direct recruits in the ratio of 50:50. But, when an amendment was made inserting one more method of appointment, a confusion got created. The result was that there was no rule for fixation of seniority of District Judges who were appointed by the third method, namely nomination on the recommendation of the High Court. It was due to this confusion that the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Bombay High Court and held that the seniority of direct recruit District Judges would reckon only from the date, they are appointed to work as District Judges. Rule 5(2)(iii)(c), on the basis of which the Supreme Court took such a view, read as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

S.Pandiarajan vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 16 July, 2012

45. But, a careful look at the decision of the Division Bench in S.Pandiarajan would show that what was under consideration before the Division Bench in that case was totally different. A group of about 17 persons were selected for appointment to the post of District Judges (Entry Level) by the method of direct recruitment in the year 2010-11. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Government and the Hon'ble Chief Justice that one of those 17 candidates, by name S.Pandiarajan, was involved in a criminal case and that he had suppressed information about the same in his application. Therefore, the said candidate was dropped out of select list and was not administered the oath of office. In his place, yet another candidate was selected and appointed. When the candidate challenged the action of the Government in dropping his name, he relied upon the expression "posting" appearing in Articles 233 and 235 of the Constitution and contended that he was already appointed to the post and that therefore, there was no jurisdiction for the High Court to drop his name subsequently. It was in that context that the Division Bench observed that a mere order of appointment does not confer any right upon the selectee and that it would not become operative until the appointee joins the services. Therefore, the said decision does not really support the contention of the petitioners, for the purpose of deciding the meaning to be assigned to the expression "appointed". As a matter of fact, the expression "appointed to a service" is defined in Rule 2(1) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. These General Rules are applicable even to those appointed as District Judges (Entry Level). The definition under Rule 2(1) of the General Rules, reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 1 - P Jyothimani - Full Document
1