Court : Delhi
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT300
madan b. lokur, j.1. the rather limited question for our consideration is: whether, in exercise of the power of relaxation conferred by statutory rules, the central government is entitled to divert vacancies, en bloc, belonging to the quota of direct recruits to the quota of promotees, in order to regularize their promotion' given the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the legal position, our answer to this question is in the affirmative.2. the aggrieved parties before us are directly recruited assistant executive engineers (civil), class i (for short aees) whose quota of vacancies for promotion to the grade of executive engineer was diverted in favour of assistant engineers (for short aes).broad facts of the case:3. the statutory rules that we are concerned with are presently called the central engineering service group 'a' recruitment rules, 1954 (for short the 1954 rules). the power to relax the statutory rules is conferred upon the central government by rule 25 of the 1954 rules and this reads as follows:25. power to relax: where the central government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, relax, in consultation with the union public service commission, any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons.4. at this stage, it may be mentioned that the ministry of urban affairs and employment (department of urban development), central engineering (civil) group 'a' service rules, 1996 (for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT593
orderramesh ranganathan, j.1. seeking to have the order of the central administrative tribunal, hyderabad bench in o. a. no. 358 of 2005, on its being renumbered as o.a. no. 1954 of 2005 dated 31 -10-2005 before the principal bench of the central administrative tribunal, new delhi, quashed, w.p. no. 25511 of 2005 is filed.2. sri n. janardhan rao and 25 others, (applicants in o.a. no. 330 of 2005 before the central administrative tribunal, hyderabad, which was renumbered as o.a. no. 1959 of 2005 before the central administrative tribunal principal bench, new delhi), have filed w.p. no. 26712 of 2005 questioning the order of the central administrative tribunal, principal bench, new delhi in o.a. no. 1959 of 2005 and batch dated 31-10-2005 and the absorption process of its group-a officers, as contemplated in proceedings dated 24-03-2005, as arbitrary and illegal.3. sri g. parameswar reddy, (general manager, west, hyderabad telecom district, bharat sanchar nigam limited), has filed w.p. no. 12161 of 2006 before this court to quash the order of the central administrative tribunal, principal bench, new delhi in o.a. no. 1954 of 2005 and batch and for a consequential direction to declare that the absorption process of its group-a officers, as contemplated in proceedings dated 24-03-2005, is illegal and arbitrary.4. sri r.n. jyothirlingam, deputy general manager (billing) bsnl telecom bhavan, hyderabad, along with 70 others, has filed w.p. no. 25531 of 2005 to quash the order of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1081; (2005)2UPLBEC1729
sabhajeet yadav, j.1. the brief fact of the case is that the chief secretary, government of uttar pradesh issued a notice which was published in news paper in the first week of august, 2001 notifying that the selections to be conducted in all the district of the state for filling up group 'c' posts in different department. the aforesaid notice was followed by an advertisement dated 29.8.2001 issued by the district magistrate, moradabad specifying the vacant posts to be filled up on the basis of such selection in the district moradabad. the copy of advertisement has been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. the advertisement so notified for district moradabad indicates that number of posts of junior clerk/typist/junior assistant and stenographers are to be filled up in different offices of the state government. the petitioner being fully eligible and qualified to the post has applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. the petitioner belongs to the general category and had applied as such. the petitioner was allocated a roll no. 5213422 for appearing in the written examination scheduled to be held on 7.10.2001. the result of written examination was declared and the petitioner was shown as having been qualified in the written examination. this information has been given by the office of district magistrate, moradabad vide letter dated 10th december, 2001 whereby the petitioner has been communicated that he has been found eligible to appear in typing test/ .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1417
s.r. singh, j.1. process for recruitment on 17 posts of kanistha lipik (junior clerk) in the establishment of collectorate, jyotiba phule nagar was initiated vide advertisement dated august 10, 1998. the petitioner who worked as seasonal assistant vasil baqi navis for a number of years filed a writ petition being ramesh chand rajput v. state of u. p. and others, civil misc. writ petition no. 34697 of 1998, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the proposed examination for appointment on the post of kanishtha lipik (junior clerk), inter alia, on the ground that 50% of the vacancies in the cadre of junior clerk ought to be filled from amongst seasonal assistant vasil baqi navis working under the collectorate. reliance was placed for the petitioner on certain decisions of this court in which itwas provided that 50% vacancies in the posts of assistant vasil baqi navis ought to be filled from amongst seasonal assistant vasil baqi navis. on behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the advertisement was not in respect of the recruitment of assistant vasil baqi navis but it related to recruitment to the post of junior clerks in the collectorate. a question arose as to whether the cadre of junior clerk as visualised by the u. p. district offices (collectorate) ministerial service rules, 1980, is the same as that of assistant vasil baqi navis. in view of the nature of controversy raised therein, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction upon .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC1291; 1984LabIC1176; (1984)IILLJ282SC; 1984(1)SCALE949; (1984)4SCC545; [1984]3SCR847; 1984(2)SLJ197(SC)
p.n. bhagwati, j.1. this writ petition marks yet another round of litigation between two groups of executive engineers in central public works department of the ministry of works and housing, government of india, one group consisting of promotes from the grade of assistant executive engineers and the other consisting of promotees from the grade of assistant engineers. the dispute between these two groups in regard to seniority has been going on for quite some time and it has created considerable discord and bitterness between these two groups which must inevitably affect the efficiency of the service. it is really a matter of regret that the central government should not have been able to bring these two groups together and evolve a commonly agreed formula acceptable to both sides. we hope that our decision in this writ petition will finally ring the curtain down on this unfortunate controversy and both groups of executive engineers will accept the decision ungrudgingly without any rancor or resentment and wholeheartedly engage themselves in the nation building task entrusted to them.2. there is in the central public works department of ministry of works and housing, government of india a service known as central engineering service (class i). this service comprises various grades; the highest grade is that of engineer-in-chief and then in descending hierarchical order are the grades of chief engineer, superintending engineer, executive engineer and assistant executive .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2005)1UPLBEC331
devi prasad singh, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties. since these bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law and facts, i proceed to decide these writ petitions by passing a present common judgment. the controversy under the present bunch of writ petitions relates to transfer of petitioner employees by the impugned order to state of uttaranchal in pursuance to provision contained in u.p. reorganization act, 2000 (act no. 29 of 2000) (hereinafter referred as act). the act was promulgated by parliament on 25th august, 2000 and it was notified in the official gazette on 9.11.2000 which is the 'appointed day' for the purpose of bifurcation of state of u.p. into two states, other one is state of uttaranchal.2. in the state of u.p. the department of horticulture and food processing was created sometime in the year 1974. admittedly, petitioners were appointed on the different post of group 2 and group 1 in the hill area of state of u.p. at that time there was only one horticulture department in the state of u.p. however, by government order dated 3.2.1984 the directorate of horticulture hill region and directorate of plain region merged into one directorate. thereafter, again by means of another government order dated 4.9.1989 the state government had created two separate directorate for hill region as well as plain region know as 'directorate of horticulture and food utilisation (hill u.p.)' which was having its head office at chhaupati ranikhet (now within .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC397; (1997)IILLJ231SC; (1997)3SCC561a; [1997]2SCR455
order1. this special leave petition arises from the judgment of the central administrative tribunal, hyderabad, made on december 24, 1996 in o.a. no. 1333/95. 2. the admitted position is that the petitioner, while working as section officer in the intelligence bureau, ministry of home affairs, govt. of india, came on deputation to the c.a.t., hyderabad bench on june 14, 1989 as private secretary to the member. thereafter, he sought absorption in the services of the c.a.t. as private secretary. there was a long drawn correspondence on this issue and ultimately an option was given to him to get absorbed as section officer. accordingly, he opted for and accepted unconditionally his absorption as a section officer in the cat. he came to be absorbed w.e.f. november 4, 1996. he filed an o.a. in the tribunal claiming seniority with reference to the date of his promotion as section officer in his parent department or alternatively, from the date of his deputation from june 14, 1989 contending that he had given his option subject to protection of his seniority. the tribunal has pointed out in its order that there are two different sets of rules for the recruitment of private secretaries and section officers. the post of private secretary is governed by the rules called central administrative tribunal stenographers' services (group b and c posts) recruitment rules, 1989. equally, there are rules issued by the president under the act governing the ministerial staff. they are called the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1098; [2005(107)FLR42]
tarun agarwala, j.1. by means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to regularise their services under the u.p. regularisation of daily wagers appointment on group 'd' posts rules, 2001 and to grant all consequential benefits as admissible under law. the petitioners alleged that they have been engaged since 1985-86 as daily wage employees and are working as malis [gardeners] in rajkiya udyan [company, bagh], government garden, allahabad and are currently deployed to work in the lawns of i the high court. the petitioners have submitted that they have been appointed against the substantive- posts, but they are not being regularised for the reasons best known to the respondents. the petitioners further submitted that they have the requisite qualifications for being regularised on the post of maalies. and that in any case, they have gained the requisite experience and expertise of the work of a mali on account of having worked continuously for more than 10 years. the petitioners have further alleged that the services of the similarly situated persons working on daily, wages as maalies with the same respondents, have been reguirised. the petitioners contended that similarly situated persons working as maalies on daily wage basis approached this court and filed civil misc. writ petition no. 30457 of 1997 in which this court-by an order dated 15.9.97 directed the respondents to regularise the services of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1999)1UPLBEC140
s.r. singh, j.1. the question that stems for consideration in these petitions listed for admission under the heading 'ig registration bunch, is as to whether the petitioners were entitled to be regularised in service as registration clerk qua the directions given by the supreme court in khagesh kumar and ors. v. inspector general of registration, u.p. and ors. jt 1995 (7) sc 542 : (1996) 1 uplbec 23 (sc). in some of the writ petitions, a further question has been brought to bear that in any case the petitioners were entitled to continue on daily wages till regular selections were made in the light of the directions given by the apex court in i.g. reg v. avdhesh kumar jt 1996 (5) sc 365 : (1996) 3 uplbec 1744 (sc). since the petitions are knit together by reason of common question of law being involved therein and also by reason of the facts being identical these petitions were grouped together and heard accordingly for a convenient disposal by a common judgment.2. it brooks no dispute that the petitioners were appointed registration clerk on daily wages on the basis of sanction given by the governor each year subject to the postulates that the appointments would, in no case, exceed three years during the course of a financial year. earlier when the matter came up before this court at the instance of a large number of daily rated registration clerks, seeking regularisatioin, the high court held that daly rated employees were not entitled to consideration for regularisation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. heard mr. h. lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioners and mr. t. vaiphei, learned assistant advocate general for the state of mizoram and mr. g. raju, learned counsel and mr. m.m. ali, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. with the consent of the parties writ petition (c) no. 16/94 and writ petition (c) no.5/95 are heard and disposed of by this common order. the five petitioners in both the cases are the same person. it may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner no.5 shri sangkamlova died and as such no relief has been sought in his favour. respondent nos. 5-9 in writ petition (c) no. 16/94 are the persons who were initially recruited as scriptwriter in the year 1981 and for the purpose of convenience hereinafter referred as respondents group i (rg i), the respondent no. 5, 6 and 7 in the writ petition (c) no. 5/95 are the persons who are initially recruited as script writers in the year 1984-1986 and hereinafter referred as respondent group ii (rg ii). 3. the facts : petitioner nos. 1-4 were recruited as sub divisional information and public relations officer (sdipro) under mizoram information and public relations and tourism department (class iii posts) under recruitment rules, 1973 and their respective date of joining is as under petitioner no. 1-12.5.83 petitioner no. 2- 26.4.83 petitioner no. 3-30.4.84 and petitioner no. 4- 7.4.84. at the time of joining their services the post of sdipro was the only feeder .....
Tag this Judgment!