Skip to content


Mahesh Kumar Agal Vs. Director General of Police and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 12094 of 1995
Judge
Reported in(1996)2SCC70; [1995]Supp6SCR795
AppellantMahesh Kumar Agal
RespondentDirector General of Police and anr.
Appellant Advocate C.L. Sahu, Adv
Respondent Advocate Amitabh Verma and ; S.K. Agnihotri, Advs.
Prior historyAppeal From the Judgment and Order dated 24-3-1992 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Bhopal in O.A. No. 196 of 1990
Excerpt:
- labour & services seniority: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] determination of seniority - u.p. intermediate education act, 1921 (2 of 1921) - regulations framed there under regulations 61(2)(b) and (c) - employee seeking unilateral/voluntary transfer - seniority in transferee organization - relevant regulations providing that a teacher seeking voluntary transfer on his own request from one educational institution to the other, to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of teachers serving on the same cadre and category in the institution - regulations further providing that the service rendered prior to the transfer in the institution from which the teacher has been transferred shall be treated as service rendered to the institution to which he has been transferred - held,.....order1. leave granted.2. passing the hindi test is a condition for promotion and since the appellant had passed the test on september 20, 1981, he was given promotion and seniority was fixed with effect from the passing of the said test. under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the tribunal warranting interference.3. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Passing the Hindi test is a condition for promotion and since the appellant had passed the test on September 20, 1981, he was given promotion and seniority was fixed with effect from the passing of the said test. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.

3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //