Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Secy To School Edun Dept, Hyderabad 2 ... vs B.Aswathama, Medak District 29 Others on 29 July, 2022 cites

Surendra Narain Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 April, 1998

36. The peculiar situation as obtaining in these cases was not envisaged by the rule making authority. Therefore, Rule 33 is silent on how to determine inter se seniority of persons appointed later but pursuant to earlier selection process. It is also appropriate to note that the delay in appointment of respondents is not attributable to them, but to the employer. The principle of law laid down in Balwant Singh Narwal PNR,J & SSRN,J WP Nos.21701 & 22011 of 2011 23 (supra), Surendra Narain Singh (supra) and C.Jayachandran apply in all fours to these cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 508 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Parmar & Ors on 27 November, 2012

42. Badharudeen has not challenged his pushing down at Sl. No. 42 either before the learned Single Bench of the High Court or before the Division Bench of the High Court or even before this Court. Therefore, as respondent, he cannot be permitted to dispute the grant of seniority to the appellant at Sl. No. 41. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel is not helpful to the arguments raised as the appellant therein sought seniority as direct recruit from the time when the vacancies occurred. To raise such an argument, reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] , wherein this Court held that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from the date he was not borne in the service. The said finding is in the context of the claim of the appellant to claim seniority from the date of availability of the vacancies; whereas in the present case, the appellant is claiming seniority from the date the other candidates in the same selection process were appointed but the appellant is excluded on account of an illegal act of the High Court of the moderation of marks. Therefore, the said judgment is not of any help to the arguments raised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 242 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Jayachandran C. vs The High Court Of Kerala on 22 September, 2017

The exclusion of appellant from appointment was on account of an illegal act by the High Court which has been so found by the judgment dated 13-9-2010 [Jayachandran C. v. High Court of Kerala, 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 4891 : (2010) 3 KLJ 212] . Since the select list has to be revised, the appellant would be deemed to be the part of the appointment along with other candidates in the same select list. As the actual date of appointment was on 24-2-2011, the appellant cannot actually be treated to be appointed on 30-3-2009 but is entitled to notional appointment from that date and consequential seniority.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1