Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)
Union Territory vs Tarlochan Singh And Others on 5 March, 2014 cites

State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973

"The question then arises whether there is any such right in the petitioners to seek such creation of additional posts. It is a well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that even when there is a vacancy, the State is not bound to fill up such vacancy nor is there any corresponding right vested in an eligible employee to demand that such post be filled up. This is because the decision to fill up a vacancy or not vests with the employer who for good reasons, be it administrative, Singh Dalbir 2014.03.05 12:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 17079-CAT of 2013 (O&M) [8] economical or policy, can decide not to fill up such post(s). (See State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha.) ............"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr .... ... vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma ....Respond on 4 December, 2006

"7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post vide Union of India v. K.K. Vadera, AIR 1990 SC 442, State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007)1 SCC 683, K.V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of A.P., (1988)2 SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha-II v. State of Bihar, (2004)10 SCC 734."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 208 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs K.K. Vadera And Ors on 26 October, 1989

"7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post vide Union of India v. K.K. Vadera, AIR 1990 SC 442, State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007)1 SCC 683, K.V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of A.P., (1988)2 SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha-II v. State of Bihar, (2004)10 SCC 734."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 164 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Sardul Singh, Head Constable vs Inspector-General Of Police And Ors. on 5 May, 1970

A Full Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Head Constable Sardul Singh v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab and others, AIR 1970 Punjab 481, reiterated the proposition that no civil servant has a right to be promoted to a higher rank and that only right is that he has a right for being considered for the promotion. He can impugn his non-selection either on the ground of mala-fide or based on an irrelevant or extraneous consideration. The Court said to the following effect:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 25 September, 2006

In a recent judgment of this Court in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P.,2006(4) SCT 487 (Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.), this Court was of the view that seniority has to be decided on the basis of rules in force on the date of appointment, no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 185 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

K.V. Subba Rao & Ors. Etc vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 24 February, 1988

"7. It has been held in a series of decisions of this Court that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post vide Union of India v. K.K. Vadera, AIR 1990 SC 442, State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007)1 SCC 683, K.V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of A.P., (1988)2 SCC 201, Sanjay K. Sinha-II v. State of Bihar, (2004)10 SCC 734."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 59 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Dr. K. Ramulu And Anr. Etc vs Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao And Ors on 15 January, 1997

Similar is the view taken in K. Ramulu (Dr.) v. (Dr.) S. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59; a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Vijender Singh & Ors., 2011(176) DLT 247 and Division Bench judgments of this Court reported as Ram Niwas, Junior Engineer, Marketing Board, Faridabad v. The Haryana State Agricultural marketing Board, Panchkula and another 1994(2) SLR 729 and in CWP No.3865 of 2012 titled as Union Territory of Chandigarh and another v. Vin Dosanjh and another decided on 4.3.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 108 - Full Document
1   2 Next