Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)B.S. Bajwa & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 11 December, 1997
iii) B.S. Bajwa & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & ors. reported in
1998 (2) SCC 523.
A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the promotees next
submitted that it is open for the Government to retrospectively
revise service rules only if the same do not affect vested rights.
In his submission, the promotees have been working in the said
posts meant for Direct Recruits for long number of years,
therefore, if upon issuance of the said Rules direct recruitment is
made for the first time only from March 1992, it would be unfair
and unjust to disturb those promotees who are working as
23/43
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:57:45 :::
wp 2982-00 .doc
Section Officers till March, 1992 by holding that they are in
excess of the quota meant for promotees. He further submits
that the rules could not impair the rights of the officials who
were appointed long prior to the rules of 1989 coming into force
and in any event when promotion of Direct Recruits was
effected only from March 1992 for the first time. Learned Senior
Counsel relies upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case
of (i) Janardhana Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC
769 and (ii) D.P. Sharma vs. Union of India reported in 1989
Supp (1) SCC 244.
Direct Recruit Class Ii Engineering ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 May, 1990
23. As regards the break down of the quota rule, learned
Senior Counsel submits that in the present case the quota rule
has not been followed continuously for a number of years as it
was impossible to do so and therefore the irresistible conclusion
that the quota rule has been broken down has to be drawn.
Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the promotees
were appointed in the quota meant for Direct Recruits till
March, 1992. Pursuant to the issuance of the GR in 1986 the
24/43
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:57:45 :::
wp 2982-00 .doc
Recruitment Rules were published only in 1989 and actual
Direct Recruitment under these Rules having been resorted only
since March 1992 would clearly indicate that there has been
enormous departure from the quota rule year to year which
permits an inference that the departure was in exercise of the
power of relaxing the quota rule conferred on the controlling
authority. Learned Senior Counsel relies upon the decisions of
the Apex Court in the case of (i) Direct Recruit Class II vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1990 SC 1607 and (ii)
Narendra Chadha vs. Union of India reported in (1986) 2 SCC
157 in support of this submission.
V. B. Badami Etc vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 17 September, 1975
18. Learned Counsel contends that if the said Rules
expressly provide that they shall be deemed to have come into
force with effect from 1st January, 1986, it was not open for the
Tribunal to modify the date so as to make it applicable from 1 st
June, 1990. He submits that the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.
200 of 1998 filed by the promotees and order in O.A.No. 713 of
1997 filed by direct recruits is contrary to each other. Learned
Counsel for the direct recruits relied upon the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of V.B. Badami vs. State of Mysore
reported in (1976) 2 SCC 901 to contend that quota strength
of direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees has to be fixed with
reference to total cadre strength. He submits that the Apex Court
has clearly held that " in respect of the promotions that are
made to vacancies in excess of promotional quota, then
promotees have no right to hold the promotional post and they
19/43
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:57:45 :::
wp 2982-00 .doc
have to be reverted back or absorbed in vacancies for
promotees."
Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 August, 2000
26. Learned AGP in support of his submission that the
State Government is justified in preparing the seniority list in
accordance with the recommendations of the Tripathi
Committee Report and to support his contention that the same is
in consonance with the said Rules has relied upon the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain vs. Union
of India reported in 2000 (8) SCC 25 and decision of this Court
in Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis vs. State of
26/43
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:57:46 :::
wp 2982-00 .doc
Maharashtra reported in AIR 1977 Bom. 193.
Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis And ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 14 April, 1976
26. Learned AGP in support of his submission that the
State Government is justified in preparing the seniority list in
accordance with the recommendations of the Tripathi
Committee Report and to support his contention that the same is
in consonance with the said Rules has relied upon the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain vs. Union
of India reported in 2000 (8) SCC 25 and decision of this Court
in Chandrakant Sakharam Karkhanis vs. State of
26/43
::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2018 01:57:46 :::
wp 2982-00 .doc
Maharashtra reported in AIR 1977 Bom. 193.
S.B. Patwardhan & Others Etc. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Others on 4 May, 1977
24. Learned Senior Counsel also invited our attention to
paragraph 38 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
S.B. Patwardhan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR
1977 SC 2051 to contend that the quota rule would apply on
the date of recruitment and not on the date of confirmation. He
therefore submits that the Petitions filed by direct recruits are
devoid of any merits and in fact Writ Petition by promotees viz.
1