mere continuation of service beyond the period of PROBATION does not amount to confirmation unless it was so specifically provided. The other line, though in very few cases, but, has been taken by this Court is that where there is provision in the Rules for initial PROBATION and extension thereof, a maximum period of such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend PROBATION.
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311(2)—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(1)—Natural justice—Petitioner dismissed from service because of conviction by Criminal Court—In appeal dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement—No notice was issued before passing order of dismissal—No summary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given before passing order of dismissal or of compulsory retirement—Order liable to be set aside.
“বেতন” অর্থ একজন কর্মচারী প্রতি মাসে বেতন, ওভারসিজ পে, বিশেষ বেতন, ব্যক্তিগত বেতন বা সরকার কর্তৃক বেতন হিসাবে বিশেষভাবে শ্রেণিভুক্ত অন্য যে কোনো প্রকার আয় বাবদ যে অর্থ প্রাপ্য হন; তবে কোনো পদে স্থায়ীভাবে বা অফিসিয়েটিং হিসাবে অধিষ্ঠিত থাকিবার কারণে বা কোনো কর্মবিভাগে তাহার অবস্থানের কারণে বিশেষ বেতন বা তাহার ব্যক্তিগত যোগ্যতার কারণে মঞ্জুরিকৃত বেতন ইহার অন্তর্ভুক্ত হইবে না;
Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations United Nations New York, 2018 Secretary-General’s bulletin ST/SGB/2018/1 1 January 2018 Under the Charter of the United Nations, the General Assembly provides staff regulations […]
The UN Dispute Tribunal hears and passes judgement on an application filed by an individual(employee), against the Order of Secretary- General of the United Nations for non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment. The terms “contract” and “terms of appointment” include all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged non- compliance.
No.F.1(1)/70-JUDICIAL (I):- In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affair’s Notification No.1/2/70/DH(S), dated the 29th May, 1970 as amended by Notification No.F.1/2/70-DH(S), dated the 25th July, 1970 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in consultation with the High Court of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules
The age old tradition on the part of the States in appointing the District Government counsel on the basis of the recommendations of the District Collector in consultation with the District Judge is based on certain principles. Whereas the District Judge is supposed to know the merit, competence and capability of the concerned lawyers for discharging their duties, the District Magistrate is supposed to know their conduct outside the Court vis-a-vis the victims of offences, public officers, witnesses etc. The District Magistrate is also supposed to know about the conduct of the Government counsel as also their integrity.
This was done in spite of the clear provisions in the L. R. Manual laying down detailed procedure for appointment, termination and renewal of tenure and the requirement to first consider the existing incumbent for renewal of his tenure and to take steps for a fresh appointment in his place only if the existing incumbent is not found suitable in comparison to more suitable persons available for appointment at the time of renewal
The appointment of lawyers by the Government and the public bodies to conduct work on their behalf, and their subsequent removal from such appointment have to be examined from three different angles viz., the nature of the legal profession, the interests of the public and the modes of the appointment and removal.
Rules 489 to 497 of Criminal Rules and Orders
West Bengal Service Rule Part -1 Chapter 15
Bengal Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1975
The West Bengal Services (Duties, Rights and Obligations of the Government Employees) Rules, 1980
No rule can be struck down merely because it has been wrongly interpreted by the Government so as to defeat the object of advancing the cause of higher merit.
A rule can not be struck down merely because it has been wrongly interpreted by Government
It is the well-settled legal position that an amendment can be considered to be declaratory and clarificatory only if the statute itself expressly and unequivocally states that it is a declaratory and clarificatory provision. If there is no such clear statement in the statute itself, the amendment will not be considered to be merely declaratory or clarificatory.
Courts are indeed conscious of the limitations which issues of national security and policy impose on the judicial evolution of doctrine in matters relating to the Armed forces. For this reason, we have noticed that the engagement of women in the Combat Arms has been specifically held to be a matter of policy by the judgment of the Delhi High Court and which is not in question in the present appeals.
SC can`t direct Govt to provide reservation and States are not bound to make reservation for ST and SC in matters of promotions.
Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Versus The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. February 07, 2020-The Supreme Court by a non-reportable judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1226 of 2020 has held that states are not bound to provide reservation in appointments and there is no fundamental right to claim quota in promotions.”In view of the law laid down by this court, there is no doubt that the state government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions,” a bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said. The Controversy in the above Appeals pertains to the reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department, Government of Uttarakhand.
Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019
Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & anr-As regards the petitioners’ plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism.As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.
Selection process-the norms existing on the date when the process of selection begins, will control the selection and the alteration to the norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the new Rules are to be given retrospective effect.
Before engaging an employee the employer shall require from him his service book, if he asserts that he has been previously in employment under any other employer and the employee shall produce the service book if he has one.
Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1976 Rules 18, 21 and 20-A Court while exercising its judicial function would ordinarily not pass an order which would make one of the parties to the lis violate a lawful order passed by another Court
Anupal Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others-30/09/2019-The power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to supplant the statutory provision under the UP Reservation Act, 1994.
Chandana Das (Malakar) Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors-25/09/2019-
In the State of West Bengal, Sikhs are a linguistic minority vis-à-vis their language, namely, Punjabi, as against the majority language of the State, which is Bengali.