Judgments - Promotion
MRS. A. CHUNE & 15 ORS VS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS
B.K.PAVITRA & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
It is clear from the above discussion that exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior and thereby denying seniority to those who are given Full Judgment
P. SIVANANDI Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS.
These appeals raise a narrow question for consideration, namely, whether the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of an officer forms a part of his ‘service record’ and whether it could be ignored for the purposes of his promotion merely on the ground that it was written after some delay. In our opinion, the ACR of an officer forms a part of his service record and he cannot be Full Judgment
STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. Vs. NIKHIL RANJAN CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, “rules in force on the date” the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. As against the case of total exclusion and Full Judgment
SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. PALAK DHARI YADAV & ORS.
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
PRAMOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Vs. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS.
The question that fell for consideration therein was whether the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of counting the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers who have qualified as graduates while in service only from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 11(1) of the Government of Pondicherry Assistant Full Judgment
Parmesh Kumar & Another Vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others
BALWANT KAUR Vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ORS
RAVINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P & ORS
U.V.MAHADKAR Vs. SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN & ORS.
S.PANNEER SELVAM & ORS. Vs. GOVT.OF T.NADU & ORS.
The concept of ‘catch-up rule’ and ‘consequential seniority’ is judicially evolved concepts to control the extent of reservation. The question of reservation and the associated promotion and the consequential seniority have been the matter of discussion in various decisions of this Court. The matter regarding reservation in promotions was considered by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney And Ors. vs. Full Judgment
SAROJ KUMAR Vs. U.O.I & ORS.
RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
In normal circumstances when retrospective promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an employee who has been denied promotion earlier. The principle of “no work no pay” would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing Full Judgment
PRABHU DAYAL KHANDELWAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, U.P.S.C. & ORS.
Raeesul Hasan Vs. State Of U.P.Through Secy.Education And 5 Ors.
HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI & ORS. Vs. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. V.K.KRISHNAN & ORS.
As stated hereinabove, seniority list for employees working in different grades should be different and there cannot be any common seniority list for all the employees working in one particular group. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment affirming the order of the Tribunal and also direct that according to the provisions of the aforestated paras contained in the Manual, the appellants Full Judgment