Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)
Dwijendranath Roy Barman vs Registrar General-Cum-Secretary And ... on 14 March, 2014 cites

Brij Mohan Lal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2002

In view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present case of "Brij Mohan Lal V. Union of India" there is now need to give weightage to the officers of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at the time of promotion to the cadre of District Judge for rendering service as the Judge of Fast Track Courts with effect from their joining to the Fast Track Courts. Accordingly, the policy decision is to be taken by the Hon'ble High Court to decide how much weightage is to be given to the officers of Civil Judge (Senior Division) for rendering their service as Judge of Fast Track Courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 246 - A Pasayat - Full Document

All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993

"In terms of Notification No. 1478-R(JS) dated 12.04.2013, it is notified for information that the following Officers of the West Bengal Judicial Service, now posted as against each of their names in the following table, will come under the zone of consideration in the process of selection through Normal Promotion, 2013, for appointment to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) provisionally subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria in such manner as Hon'ble Court will deem fit and proper and subject to the result of the cases of Malik Mazhar Sultan (Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006), Writ Petition filed by the West Bengal Judicial Service Association (W.P. (C) No. 46/2007) and All India Judges' Case (W.P. (C) 1022 of 1989), now pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 482 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989

Matter How disposed of To consider the proposal of Discussed. the Registry for establishment of new Courts and regularisation of The proposal of the Registry services of Presiding Officers of is accepted. Fast Track Courts as per direction of the Hon'ble Supreme It is resolved that the Court in the case of Brij Mohan vacancies as proposed shall be Lal vs. Union of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 99 - Cited by 290 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995

In furtherance of such argument, the High Court administration has referred to the judgments reported at (1995) 3 SCC 486 (Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir) and (2010) 12 SCC 576 (Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar) for the proposition that a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at a selection process but is unsuccessful cannot challenge the process of selection.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 457 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Awanish Kumar @ Awanish Kumar Shahi vs State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2009

In furtherance of such argument, the High Court administration has referred to the judgments reported at (1995) 3 SCC 486 (Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir) and (2010) 12 SCC 576 (Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar) for the proposition that a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at a selection process but is unsuccessful cannot challenge the process of selection.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 240 - Full Document

Sri Tapan Kumar Das-Ii & Ors vs The High Court At Calcutta & Ors on 22 December, 2011

The second bunch of petitioners had previously canvassed their entitlement to notional seniority in WP No. 13020(W) of 2009. That petition failed on the grounds indicated in the judgment and order thereon of July 24, 2009 which has been quoted in its entirety in the appellate order therefrom passed on December 22, 2011. The Division Bench held, in the unreported judgement rendered on December 22, 2011 in MAT No. 846 of 2009 (Tapan Kumar Das-II v. The High Court at Calcutta), that "the tenure of service in Fast Track Courts is not countable to determine the seniority in the rank of District Judge." The second set of petitioners refer to the submission attributed in the single Bench judgment to the High Court administration at paragraph 16 thereof to the effect that "if directions are issued in future for regularisation the fast track court judges in the cadre of district judge, the High Court administration would comply with such direction." The second lot of petitioners say that despite their previous failure in asserting their right to notional seniority by dint of their officiating as fast track court judges, the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the judgment in Brij Mohan Lal (2) confers them such right that had been denied earlier.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - P K Ray - Full Document

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

The second set of petitioners rely on the judgments reported at (2000) 8 SCC 25 (Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India) and (2013) 3 SCC 658 (Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra Prasad Das) in support of the contention that they are entitled to seniority in the rank of District Judge on account of their tenure as fast track court judges. The judgment in Rudra Kumar Sain cannot be relied upon by the second lot of petitioners since the dictum therein was considered, or is deemed to have been considered, in course of the rejection of their earlier petition. The judgment in Debabrata Dash, delivered subsequent to the decision in Brij Mohan Lal (2), needs to be looked into to assess whether it gives the second lot of petitioners the right that they seek to assert.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 214 - Full Document

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

In Debabrata Dash, a writ petition was filed before the Orissa High Court by a judicial officer claiming that the entirety of the service rendered by such officer in a fast track court as Additional District Judge ought to have been taken into account while fixing his seniority after regularisation of his service in the Senior Branch Cadre under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. The Orissa High Court decided the issue in favour of the writ petitioner. Two of the respondents to the writ petition, who were direct recruits from the Bar in the Higher Judicial Service, challenged the decision before the Supreme Court on the ground, inter alia, that the Orissa High Court had not appropriately applied the dicta of the Supreme Court in several judgments including Rudra Kumar Sain, Brij Mohan Lal (1) and Brij Mohan Lal (2). The writ petitioner in that case was given ad hoc appointment as a fast track court judge and Additional District Judge on April 26, 2002. The appellants before the Supreme Court, the direct recruits, joined the District Judge cadre in February, 2003. By a notification of December 15, 2003, the writ petitioner was allowed to officiate in the Senior Branch of the Superior Judicial Service on regular basis on account of a vacancy that arose due to the retirement of an officer of the Senior Branch. The writ petitioner assumed his posting as Additional District and Sessions Judge on February 3, 2004 pursuant to the notification of December 15, 2003. The writ petitioner was substantially appointed in the cadre of District Judge with effect from January 17, 2007. The Orissa High Court allowed the writ petition by holding that the promotion of the writ petitioner to the Senior Branch had to be counted from April 26, 2002 which was the date of his joining as ad hoc Additional District Judge in a fast track court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Nohiria Ram vs The Union Of India And Others(With ... on 8 November, 1957

It must be appreciated that judges appointed on ad hoc basis to preside over fast track courts were required to be given artificial promotion to the District Judge cadre since fast track courts were designed to decide, inter alia, sessions triable cases and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a class of officers to try such matters. The Supreme Court dictum in Debabrata Dash reiterates the settled position in service jurisprudence enunciated in the judgment reported at AIR 1958 SC 113 (Nohiria Ram v. Union of India), which has been cited by the High Court, that only upon promotion of an employee to a particular cadre at the time that he was discharging the functions of an officer in that cadre would the rule of seniority apply, dating his seniority from the time of his officiating in the cadre on regular basis against a vacancy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 Next