Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Urmila Devi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 March, 2023 cites

Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995

10. As already noticed, the rule of catch-up was originally expounded in Virpal Singh Chauhan's case (supra) which was subsequently expanded and explained in Ajit Singh's-II case (supra). The sine-qua-non for the applicability of the catch-up rule is that if an employe gets accelerated promotion on account of reservation and a general category employee, who was senior to such reserved category employee in the feeder cadre, gets promoted subsequently, they by application of the catch-up rule, 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-06-2023 12:19:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:041187 CWP-10167 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:041187 -7- the general category senior employee in the feeder cadre shall be placed higher than the employee who got accelerated promotion on account of reservation prior to his senior provided that the reserve category employee is still on the next level. This rule will not be applicable in a situation where the candidate getting accelerated promotion, belonging to reserve category, has further been moved up to the next promotional post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 447 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Jakotia Plastics Private Limited (Unit ... vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity ... on 5 October, 1999

8. It is evident that the petitioners were senior to the private 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-06-2023 12:19:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:041187 CWP-10167 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:041187 -6- respondent no.3 and 4 in the respective feeder cadres i.e. Clerks/Steno- typist. A seniority list was issued on 22.04.2005 with respect to the Auditors upto 31.01.2005, wherein, the petitioners were placed at Sr. No.53 and 54 respectively, whereas, the names of respondent no.3 and 4, who were not promoted by then, were not included. Respondent no.3 and 4 joined as Auditors on 30.03.2005. In the tentative seniority list issued in 2015 and as well as in 2018, the petitioners were placed over the private respondents. Though, while issuing the seniority list dated 26.04.2021, no reason has been assigned for placing the respondent no.3 and 4 above the petitioners, however, while filing the written statement, it has been disclosed that the private respondents have been given the benefit of rule of catch-up as originally envisaged in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 which was further explained and expanded by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and other (II) Vs. State of Punjab and others (1999) 7 SCC 209.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - E D Rao - Full Document

Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure vs Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende on 5 March, 2019

7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 08-06-2023 12:19:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:041187 CWP-10167 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:041187 -8- (3) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende and others (2020) 11 SCC 399 has held that the catch-up principle cannot be applied in ignorance of the requirement of meeting the eligibility criteria in addition to the criteria for determining seniority-cum-merit. (4) It is the admitted case of the State that there were four backlog vacancies in the reserve category. It was precisely for this reason that the type test was held for reserve category candidates in July, 1999, 2000. The private respondents never made any grievance that they should also be allowed to participate. Once the vacancies were only for the reserve category, the petitioners were correctly permitted to participate in the type test and on passing of the examination, they were promoted. The private respondents were not entitled to be considered for promotion against the reserved category vacancy. (5) While filing the written statement, the State has not even asserted that the respondent no.3 and 4 were senior to the petitioners in the feeder cadre. Hence, the rule itself is not applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 12 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1