Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
In the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC
436, the Apex Court has held that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get
sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an
action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes
at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to
validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in
violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad
in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to
be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful
origin.
State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013
As such, this Court is of the view that the decision rendered in Jai
Singh Dalal & Ors.(supra) and K.D. Sharma (supra) are not applicable to the facts of
this case.
Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 12 November, 2009
In the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others vs. State of Orissa and
Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471, the Apex Court has cited the decision of the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and
others vs. State Of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317, which
considered the effect of delay in challenging a promotion and the seniority list,
wherein the Constitution Bench held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage
should be rejected, inasmuch as, it seeks to disturb the vested rights of others
regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the
intervening period. The Apex Court in the above noted case held that a party should
approach the Court just after accrual of the cause. While deciding the said case, the
Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, wherein it observed that the
principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the
ground of delay or laches is that the rights which have accrued by the reason of
delay in filing a writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a
reasonable explanation for the delay.
Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973
In the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others vs. State of Orissa and
Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471, the Apex Court has cited the decision of the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and
others vs. State Of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317, which
considered the effect of delay in challenging a promotion and the seniority list,
wherein the Constitution Bench held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage
should be rejected, inasmuch as, it seeks to disturb the vested rights of others
regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the
intervening period. The Apex Court in the above noted case held that a party should
approach the Court just after accrual of the cause. While deciding the said case, the
Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, wherein it observed that the
principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the
ground of delay or laches is that the rights which have accrued by the reason of
delay in filing a writ petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a
reasonable explanation for the delay.
Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985
Section 5 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Bal Kishan vs Delhi Administration And Anr. on 6 October, 1989
Not only that in the final gradation list of
Executive Engineer dated 14.10.2014 the last ranked officer is Shri Binoy
Kumar Bora at Sl. No. 131. His position in the gradation list of Assistant
Executive Engineer was at Sl. No. 71. This shows that officers in the cadre
of Assistant Executive Engineer from Sl.No. 72 to 317 barring the reserve
category candidates are yet to be promoted to the cadre of Executive
Engineer. The Apex Court in the case of Bal Kishan Vs. Delhi Administration
and another reported in 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 351 held that no junior shall be
confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his senior. Any
deviation from this principle will have demoralizing effect in service apart
from being contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Petitioner could not
show that his seniors in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer were not
suitable for promotion when he was promoted to Executive Engineer. He
also could not show that they were considered before being superceded by
the petitioner. Petitioner's promotion to Executive Engineer was therefore ex-
facie illegal and had to be corrected. There is a distinction between a judicial
approach and the approach by an administrative authority while
considering delay in matters of seniority and promotion. Test applied in
judicial proceeding is very strict in as much as in a judicial proceeding there
is assertion of one's right and adjudication based thereon. Therefore, before
entertaining such challenge the Court looks into various aspects, such as,
delay and laches as belated interference by the Court may upset settled
positions as because of the delay interest of third parties may get ripened.
Such belated interference may also lead to administrative dislocation
causing serious complication. Therefore, belated challenge or stale claims to
seniority and promotion are ordinarily not entertained by the Courts. But
that is not the case here. Firstly, without any Court intervention, in view of
the indisputable facts leading to only one possible conclusion, the State
decided to review the promotions of the petitioner and accordingly, Review
Selection Board was constituted which has recommended reversion of the
petitioner. Secondly, reversion of the petitioner to the ex cadre post of
Executive Engineer will not cause any administrative complication or
dislocation. Rather, it will only restore some sanity and orderliness in the
Department, thereby removing the grievance of a large number of
engineers".
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Dipajit Das And 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 8 Ors on 19 June, 2020
19. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.04.2021 was issued, wherein a
decision has been taken to exclude the name of the petitioner from the final inter-se-
seniority list of E.E. (Civil), PWD and also to retrospectively abolish the ex-cadre post
of E.E., created solely for the petitioner, in pursuant to the judgment dated
23.10.2018 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10662/2018, "Ajit Kumar
Bhuyan & Ors. (supra). The impugned order also reverted the petitioner to the cadre
of A.E.E. and to re-fixed his inter-se-seniority in the grade of A.E.E. (Civil), in parity
with the other incumbents of the said cadre, on the basis of the inter-se-seniority
list of Assistant Engineers (Civil), notified vide Government Notification dated
31.05.2002, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.164.