Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Amit Kumar vs Gnctd on 6 January, 2026 cites

Kamal Singh Kanhaiyalal Parihar Son Of ... vs Union Of India And Others on 8 April, 2010

24. Learned counsel for the applicants has denied that the seniority of PGTs holding post as on 31.12.2023 has been correctly fixed as alleged or that applicants are not entitled for fixation of their LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 26 seniority for the recruitment year merely on the ground that their results of direct recruitment were declared late. It is submitted that it is only in such circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in N.R. Parmar's case and DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 gain significance in as much as they cover the issue. Para 5(i) of the OM dated 04.03.2014 is wrongly interpreted by the respondents whereas these instructions are in favour of the applicants. The instruction relate to 'inter se' seniority of direct recruits and promotees, hence the applicants are entitled to fixation of inter se seniority with the promotees of the year 2012. The representations have been wrongly rejected by the respondents.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 43 - A G Masih - Full Document

B.S. Bajwa & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 11 December, 1997

15. While opposing the OA, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objections and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in WP(C) No. 14406/2022, has categorically held that belated challenges to long-standing seniority are not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523; P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152; and Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317, observed that seniority issues should not be reopened after the lapse of a reasonable period, as such reopening disturbs settled positions and vested rights. Inordinate delay by itself is sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where stale claims are raised to unsettle matters that have already attained finality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 249 - Full Document

Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973

15. While opposing the OA, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objections and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in WP(C) No. 14406/2022, has categorically held that belated challenges to long-standing seniority are not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523; P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152; and Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317, observed that seniority issues should not be reopened after the lapse of a reasonable period, as such reopening disturbs settled positions and vested rights. Inordinate delay by itself is sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where stale claims are raised to unsettle matters that have already attained finality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 254 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Kuldip Chand vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1995

22. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed the rejoinder and submitted that the respondents have not made any averment regarding the said extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 14406/2022 and merely quoted it. Be that as it may, it is submitted that the same are not attracted in the present case as the applicants have approached the Tribunal at the very first LALIT 2026.01.08 GOSAIN 15:45:57+05'30' 25 available opportunity, immediately upon cause of action having arisen in their favour, for fixation of inter se' seniority of the appointees of two sources. The applicants came to be appointed to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers during the years 2016 and 2017 pursuant to a selection process initiated in the year 2012 and a tentative seniority list was circulated, for the first time on 03.09.2021, inviting objections. Their objections were rejected vide impugned order dated 06.06.2023. Hence, the claim of seniority is not belated and the seniority position inter se the batch of promotees of the year 2012 has never been determined even though the batch of promotees were assigned seniority in the list dated 14.03.2014. Additionally, as the said seniority list has not been operated, it is open to challenge in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Chand vs. Union of India & Ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

C.N. Palayyan, I.J. Baby, L. ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By The ... on 11 April, 2003

30. It is well settled that a candidate cannot be made to suffer on account of administrative delay for which he or she is not responsible. The very purpose of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar v. Union of India and the consequent issuance of DoPT OM dated 04.03.2014 is to ensure that seniority between direct recruits and promotees is determined with reference to the recruitment year and not the fortuitous date of appointment, where recruitment has been initiated against identified vacancies.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 182 - P K Misra - Full Document

P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 October, 1974

15. While opposing the OA, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objections and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in WP(C) No. 14406/2022, has categorically held that belated challenges to long-standing seniority are not maintainable. The Hon'ble High Court, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523; P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152; and Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317, observed that seniority issues should not be reopened after the lapse of a reasonable period, as such reopening disturbs settled positions and vested rights. Inordinate delay by itself is sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where stale claims are raised to unsettle matters that have already attained finality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 685 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document
1