||W.P.No.20439 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011(High Court Of Madras)
||Writ Appeal also dismissed
||Writ Appeal No.2265 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011(High Court Of Madras)
||Only the candidates under reserved category, who secured more marks in the selection are considered under unreserved category - the consideration of the incomplete application of the reserved candidates under the unreserved category is illegal and the application should have been rejected.
||W.P.Nos.7043 of 2008, 4068, 5912, 5913, 11211, 11212, 13680, 11854, 26387 of 2009, 15297 of 2010(High Court Of Madras)
||Petitioner cannot claim right to be promoted during the pendency of the departmental enquiry - It is within the power of the state, to withhold such promotion, until incumbent gets exonerated of the charges. The right of employee is protected under the rules, as in case of exoneration, the employee gets entitled to promotion, if found fit from the due date or the date when the juniors are promoted, with all consequential benefits - The enquiry proceedings cannot be quashed at initial stage - Court can quash the charge sheet or show cause notice, if it found to be without jurisdiction, or for some other reason, if it wholly illegal, though normally, the High Court should not interfere - charge sheets, issued to the petitioners are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion in accordance with law.
||W.P.No.19735 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007(High Court Of Madras)
||Circular demanding clean records in the preceding five years - records show petitioner suffered adverse remarks - not considered for the post
||Civil Appeals Nos. 4507 and 4508 of 1992 (arising out of Spl. Appeal No. 7138 of 1992 with S.L.P. (C) No. 6494 of 1992), D/- 20 -10 -1992.(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA )
||Suitability for purposes of being selected to posts - Promotion could be accorded on basis of merit and not merely on basis of seniority - Guidelines issued by Government cannot be ignored. Act
||Civil Appeal No. 3273 of 1988(Supreme Court of India)
||Absence of one of the members of a Departmental Promotion Committee at a meeting convened for the purpose of making recommendations regarding the promotion of officers to higher posts - the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee at that meeting would become invalid.
||M.S. Datta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 August, 1973(Delhi High Court)
||The posts being selection posts the petitioners had no right to be promoted merely on the basis of their seniority.
||Mallinath Jain vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 December, 1972(Delhi High Court)
||The adverse remarks were only corrective in nature and were not toned down. The reversion of the petitioner was ordered by the Commissioner on the basis of the gradation and on the wrong view that there was no toning down of the adverse remarks. The order of reversion and the resolution passed by the Corporation were thus vitiated.