Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If appellants wanted the seniority of respondent to be counted from a date of joining, then nothing prevented them from mentioning similar condition as was fixed regarding the pay and allowances with respect to seniority also.”
“It appears, in order to avoid its liability to pay salary attached to the post and to deprive the employees from lawful service benefits available to them, exploitative policy of contract appointment for initial five years is being adopted and practiced.”
“Subsistence allowance is not a largesse, but the statutory right of an employee, and any denial of the same would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Supreme Court said that there was no fault on the part of the appellants. It was because of the wrong marking at the relevant time that they were deprived of the appointments, and they were not placed in the merit list, and such was required to be corrected on the revision of the marks on re-evaluation.
Some members of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service had claimed that the service rendered by them as District & Sessions Fast Track judges on Ad-hoc basis was not considered for elevation to the Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
“A difference in the seniority of a particular officer is not the same as a difference in their ranks.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vishal Mishra J. disposed of the petition without expressing any opinion on the merit in a petition filed
Meghalaya High Court: Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. while deciding in the matter between groups of persons in the Meghalaya Civil Service and the
Supreme Court: The 3-Judges Bench comprising of D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., set aside the seniority list prepared by
Supreme Court: The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy*, JJ has held that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has set aside the order of
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ., while allowing the present petition in
Supreme Court: In the case relating to seniority of teachers appointed with Shri Samarth Shikshan Sansthan, the 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara
Supreme Court: In the case where Direct Recruits to the newly created posts of Tax Assistants in the Finance Department of the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has dismissed the claim of certain District Judges
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ has refused to review it’s verdict in B K Pavitra
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ has held that the inter se placement of the candidates selected
Supreme Court: Upholding the validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to
Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Arun Bhansali, J. allowed a petition filed to claim seniority on the basis of the merit
Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and R.C. Khulbe, J., dismissed a petition seeking to quash the orders and further