Court in R. K. Sethi v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, (1997) 10 SCC 616 held that in service jurisprudence, the “next below rule” contemplates to ensure that if junior employee is given promotion without considering his senior then the senior employee can claim the right to be considered for such promotion with effect from the date on which the junior was so promoted.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 while dealing with alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on […]
The meaning to be assigned to these terms while interpreting provisions of a Service Rule will depend on the provisions of that Rule and the context in and the purpose for which the expressions are used. The meaning of any of these terms in the context of computation of inter se seniority of officers holding Cadre post will depend on the facts and circumstances in which the appointment came to be made.
The principles of seniority-cum-merit and merit-cum-seniority are conceptually different. For the former, greater emphasis is laid in seniority, though it is not the determinative factor, while in the latter merit is the determinative factor. In The State of Mysore and Anr. v. Syed Mahamood and Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1113, it was observed that in the background of Rule 4(3)(b) of the Mysore State Civil services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 which required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, that the rule required promotion to be made by selection on the basis of “seniority subject to fitness of the candidate to discharge the duties of the post from among persons eligible for promotion”.
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.
In the law relating to master and servant the expression “dismissal” has acquired a limited meaning – determination of employment as a method of punishment for misconduct or other cause.
In many of these decisions the expressions “vested rights” or “accrued rights” have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees.
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.
The rule enacted to constitute a Service to be known as the ‘Indian Enterprise Development Service’ consisting of members Published vide Notification No. G.S.R. 536(E), dated 31.7.2019 G.S.R. 536(E). – In exercise […]
whether the employer, Statutory Corporation or instrumentality or other authority under Art. 12 of the Constitution has unbridled power to terminate the services of a permanent employee by issue of notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry or opportunity, in exercise of the power in terms of contract which include statutory Rules or Regulations or instructions having force of law.
(1) These rules may be called the West Bengal Services (Duties, Rights and Obligations of the Government employees) Rules, 1980. (2) They shall apply to all employees ot die Government of West Bengal: Provided […]