Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 October, 1969
Reliance was placed on the principles stated in Rabindra Nath Bose's case
(AIR 1970 SC 470) and finally in para 29 their Lordships held thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.45 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar on 21 August, 1991
In para 8 the principle that unless an adverse order is challenged within a
prescribed time limit, the said order will become final, has also been
adverted to in the following words, relying upon the observations of Wade
in Administrative Law, 6th Edn. and the decision of the Apex Court in State
of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh (1992 (1) KLT SN 28):
Sudhakaran vs State Of Kerala on 26 October, 2010
12. The first respondent in their counter affidavit maintains that the
gradation lists of ministerial staff for the period upto 31.3.1988 have been
printed and published by Government of Kerala during 1994. Later, only
seniority lists of qualified LD Clerks were prepared, for giving timely
promotion to the posts of U.D. Clerks. In such lists, details, viz. PSC
advice number & date/dist of option/mode of appointment/details of inter-
district transfers, etc. were not incorporated. The District Recruitment
Board Rules were not applied. Even though these seniority lists were not
challenged upto 2006, thereafter several representations were received for
reviewing it based on the District Recruitment Board Rules and accordingly
the provisional lists were issued. The principles stated by the Apex Court in
Sudhakaran's case (2006 (2) KLT 817 (SC)), are therefore to be applied.
wpc 4643 & 10475
of 2010 14
Therefore, the seniority of transferred L.D. Clerks (inter-district
transferees) can be counted only from the date of joining in the transferred
station, excluding the previous service. It is pointed out that the promotions
effected being provisional, there is no embargo in reviewing the seniority
list.
Shri Shekhar Ghosh vs Union Of India & Anr on 1 November, 2006
24. Even with respect to the rectification of mistake, the Apex Court
in para 19 of the judgment in Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India and
another {(2007) 1 SCC 331}, held that "if a mistake is to be rectified the
same should be done as expeditiously as possible.
Board Of Secondary Education Of Assam vs Md. Sarifuz Zaman And Ors on 19 December, 2003
(See Board of Secondary
wpc 4643 & 10475
of 2010 25
Education of Assam v. Mohd. Sarifuzaman - {(2003) 12 SCC 408}."
Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973
"The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long
standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A
Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar
& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259,
considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and
seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage
should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights
wpc 4643 & 10475
of 2010 24
of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have
accrued to them during he intervening period. A party should
approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint."
A.C. Pavithran And Etc. vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2006
22. The above legal position was reiterated by a Full Bench of this
Court in Pavithran's case (2009 (4) KLT 20 - FB). Therein, the dispute
was with regard to the seniority under Rule 37 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R.
wpc 4643 & 10475
of 2010 21
The facts of the case show that the seniority list published by the Manager
as on 1.1.1993 was objected to by the sixth respondent by preferring a
representation before the Assistant Educational Officer, which was rejected
by Ext.P2 order dated 13.6.1994. This was challenged by him in an appeal
before the District Educational officer which was dismissed by Ext.P3 order
dated 15.6.1995. These orders were never challenged. After 10 years the
sixth respondent moved the Assistant Educational Officer by filing
Annexure II representation, claiming seniority over the appellant in the
cadre of LPSA. The resultant order was challenged before the Government
by the sixth respondent which was allowed. The same was under challenge
in the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed, against which writ
appeals were filed.
1