|
|
Database updates
Judgments
(1) R. Ramasubramanian; (2) Management of Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Harita, Hosur vs (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore; (2) Management of Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Harita, Hosur; (3) R. Ramasubramanian
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether claims of the workman for reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service were rightly negatived and whether Labour court was justified in granting compensation of Rs. 30, 000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement? - Held, it is not correct for the petitioner to contend that if the probation is not extended within the prescribed period, it will result in an automatic confirmation; it is also seen from Ex. M.8, the last extension order, the workman had signed for having received the original order, in that order, it was stated that the petitioner's performance continues to be unsatisfactory but he was given another opportunity - Considering the fact that the workman had put in 3 years of service and his and his probation was thrice extended and considering the fact that the Labour Court had only ordered Rs.30, 000/- as compensation, High Court feels that it is inadequate, therefore, a direction is issued to the Management to pay another Rs. 50, 000/- towards compensation - Petitions disposed of.
|
(1) Sony C. Varghese; (2) S. Santhanakrishnan; (3) T.P. Philip; (4) George Thomas; (5) Bn/Railway Protection Special Force, Thiruchirappalli; (6) B.S. Parthasarathy; (7) Jacob P. John; (8) M.A. Rehman; (9) P. V. Subramanian; (10) P.V. Narasimha Rao; (11) P.V. Rajendran; (12) M.A. Girinarayanan; (13) T.S. Raju; (14) E. Mohanam; (15) H. Johnson Raja Singh; (16) Ashok Singh vs (1) Union of India, Through Chairman, Railway Board Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (2) Member Staff, Railway Board Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (3) Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (4) Director General, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi; (5) Joint Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (6) Ajanji Kumar; (7) Athul Pattak; (8) S.E. Rattan Chand; (9) Ranvir Singh Chouhan; (10) Amiga Nath Mishra; (11) Pranav Kumar; (12) Chellanya, Represented By Joint Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi; (13) R.K. Khullar; (14) Vinod Kumar Dhaka; (15) Paramjit Mann; (16) Suresh Chandra ; (17) Nirmal Singh; (18) Shichandre Lyndoh Buam; (19) Vijay Kumar Dev; (20) Sunil Kumar Sinha; (21) Sanjay Kishore; (22) Udai Shanker Shukla; (23) Anwar Haleem; (24) Pamhal Pacherwal; (25) Darahan Singh; (26) Gopal Ohri; (27) Sanjay Sankrityayan; (28) Surat Chandra Parhi; (29) Sunil Kumar Singh; (30) Rajinder Kumar Malik; (31) Matvinder Singh; (32) Satya Narain Manday; (33) Ravindra Sharma; (34) A.T. Srivastava; (35) Rajakamal; (36) B.B. Mishra; (37) M. Venkateswaralu; (38) Birendra Kumar; (39) Rambhau P. Pawar; (40) Sarvapriya; (41) A.N. Sinha; (42) G.M. Eswara Rao; (43) Hemant Kumar; (44) Praveen Chandra Sinha; (45) Ravendranath Kesar; (46) Suresh Kumar Sini; (47) Almlendu Shekhar; (48) Naresh Kumar Virdi; (49) Ram Swaroop Meena; (50) Kanchana Charan; (51) Manaawar Khusheed; (52) M. Sabu; (53) Vijay Kumar; (54) Vikay Kumar Khartarkar; (55) Tarique Ahmed; (56) Arma Singh Thakur; (57) Renu Pushkar; (58) Surendra Nath Chaudhary
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether direction could be issued to respondent to grant pro-forma promotion to the petitioners, Assistant Security Commissioners in the Railway Protection Force, under the RPF Group A Post Recruitment Rules 1994 with retrospective effect from the date of implementation of the IVth Pay Commission? - Held, in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Grewals' case as well as the interim order passed in this writ petition and in the light of the direction given by this Court in W.P. No. 6631 of 2002 dated 14.5.2002, the respondent Railways are directed to convene the DPC for the years 1986 to 1996 and after making an assessment of the case of the petitioners, grant them the presumptive promotion in respect of those years and refix their salary and seniority in the light of such an order being passed by the respondents - Relief must be given to all the petitioners since at the time of filing of the writ petition, they were very much in service - Petition allowed.
|
D. Kannan vs (1) Central Bank of India Central Office, Represented By Chairman and Managing Director, Chander Mukhi, Bombay; (2) Appellate Authority, Assistant General Manager, Chennai; (3) Disciplinary Authority / Regional Manager, Regional Office, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether under the order, the respondents in guise of further enquiry conducted fresh enquiry? - Held, in the guise of conducting a further enquiry, the respondent Bank had gone ahead with the fresh enquiry contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court - If the intention of the respondent Bank was only to examine a Forensic Expert who was not available at the time of the original enquiry, they could have very well informed High Court at an earlier point of time; they had not only to examine one additional witness, but also re-examined all the original four witnesses which is not permissible in law, therefore, they cannot take undue advantage of the earlier Division Bench's order - Petition allowed with costs.
|
(1) Management of Thay Mudi Estate, Mudis Group of Estate, Coimbatore; (2) K. Sakthivel vs (1) K. Sakthivel; (2) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore (2) Management of Thay Mudi Estate, Mudis Group of Estate, Coimbatore
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Whether Labour Court had rightly held that workman was eligible for re-employment as a Field Assistant? - Held, workman was absent without leave; there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was employed as a Field staff; in the absence of any records, the Labour Court cannot presume the status of the workman on the basis of his oral statement; there is also no sufficient explanation about the petitioner's absence; his having failed in the staff selection and that his undergoing training in some other estate was also not properly considered by the Labour Court - In a dispute u/s. 2A(2) of the ID Act, 1947, the question of status of the workman cannot be gone into - Petitions disposed of.
|
(1) Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Secretariat Staff Association, Represented By Its Secretary, Chennai; (2) Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Administrative Staff Association, Represented By Its General Secretary; (3) K. Parthasarathy; (4) M. Murthy; (5) T. Palaniappan; (6) V. Perumal; (7) T.R. Vasuevan; (8) G. Sethuraman; (9) A.S. Sivagnanamani; (10) M.R. Chellappan; (11) E. Karunanithi; (12) R. Sankaran; (13) T. Selvanesan; (14) D. Jayabalakrishnan; (15) C.M. Shanmugam; (16) P. Murali; (17) B. Chidambaram; (18) S. Ganesan; (19) M. Srinivas; (20) V. Jaychandran vs (1) Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Represented By Its Managing Director, Chennai; (2) Secretary To Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development and Water Supply Department, Chennai; (3) President, Twad Board Secretariat Staff Assn., Kamarajar Salai, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Whether staff of the TWAD Board working in its Secretariat can be compared with that of the staff in the Government Secretariat? - Held, petitioners have not made out a case for pay parity with that of the Government Secretariat; as they were working in the Board Secretariat, they are eligible for the pay scale as made available to others - The question of pay parity or equation of post is a policy decision over which the Court has no pro-active role by recommending either a particular scale or equation of posts with some other department - On the question of recovery, no sympathy can be shown to the petitioners either on the ground that they were a vanishing tribe or that there will be a huge loss to them - Petitions disposed of.
|
Management of Tamil Nadu Tea Plantations Corporation Limited, Chinna Kallar Division, Represented By Its Divisional Manager, Valparai vs (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore; (2) Kuttan
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 30 Jun 2008]
Challenge to the award of Labour Court wherein, it instead of deciding the issue of maintainability of dispute, recorded a finding that the petitioner was orally terminated and granted back wages - Held, award of the Labour Court suffers from material irregularity and it was passed without jurisdiction - Petition allowed.
|
R.Gandhi vs (1) District Project Nutrition Officer, Villupuram; (2) Lakshmi
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 27 Jun 2008]
Whether petitioner having passed only 9th standard instead of requisite minimum general qualification of S.S.L.C pass, was eligible for promotion to the post of Community Nutrition Worker? - Held, petitioner does not possess the required minimum educational qualification to be promoted to the post of Community Nutrition Worker - Petition dismissed.
|
R. K. Kottary vs (1) Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, Mumbai; (2) General Manager, Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, Mumbai; (3) M. P. Lobo, Sr. Administrative Officer (Electric Supply) Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, Mumbai
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 26 Jun 2008]
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Whether in terms of the Circular D/- 07-12-1992 Respondents were bound to accepted the request of the Petitioner for withdrawal of resignation and induction into the service? - Held, these are discretionary powers vested in the Competent Authority and they do give a right of consideration of the request to the applicant, but certainly do not vest an applicant with an indefeasible legal right to claim re-employment - Iit is merely a benefit which may or may not be available to the employee in the discretion of the employer and such decision cannot be faulted with if it is inconformity with rules and settled principles of law - Once a discretion is vested in the authorities and it is exercised in a manner acceptable in law, in that event, the Court will not interfere just because it was possible to take a view other than the one taken by the authorities concerned - Coming to the aspect of arbitrariness in administrative action, the onus is again on the Petitioner and he must spell out by specific allegations the circumstances on which he claims arbitrariness in the action of the authorities - Petition dismissed.
|
M.Chakravarthy vs (1) Director of School Education, Madras; (2) Senior Audit Officer, Office of Accountant General (Audit I), Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, Madras; (3) Headmaste, Government Boys Highers Secondary School, Kadathur, Dharmapuri
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Jun 2008]
Tamil Nadu Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989 - Petition to challenge order directing petitioner to repay the amount paid to him under revised scale of pay Rules 1989 - In the communication from the Office of the Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements) it was clearly stated that "it is seen that the petitioners can have no grievance in respect of pensionary benefits authorized by this Respondent; if at all they have any grievance in respect of the benefits authorised by this office, they can very well give a representation to the respondent for further necessary action" - Petitioner submitted that in view of communication no further orders were required to be passed in petition - Petition dismissed.
|
N.Kabirdoss vs (1) District Collector, Nqm; (2) Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodaivasal Taluk
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Jun 2008]
Petitioner submitted that no further orders were necessary as he would have attained the age of superannuation at the time of hearing of petition - Petition disposed of.
|
(1) Arvind G. Chaudhari, Sub-Divisional Officer Irrigation, Jalgaon; (2) Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Irrigation Division vs (1) Dhanraj Nathu Patil; (2) Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 24 Jun 2008]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 - Whether award of Labour court given in complaint filed was illegal on the ground that necessary party-Collector who was responsible for implementation of the Employment Guarantee Scheme, was not made a party in complaint? - Held, persons working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme are not governed by the provisions of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and the ID Act, 1947 - Employment Guarantee Scheme is not an industry and as such the Labour Court and the Industrial Court will not have jurisdiction to give reliefs - s. 11(1) of MEG Act, 1977 clearly lays down that whenever work taken up under the scheme is completed, providing alternate work is the duty of the Collector or Samiti Officer, so the Collector was the necessary party to the present petition - Petition allowed.
|
(1) M.Punniyakoti; (2) S.Thirunavukkarasu; (3) M.Selvaraj vs (1) Secretary To Government of Tamil Nadu, Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, Chennai; (2) Director of Social Defence Chepauk, Chennai; (3) Evlin Baul; (4) S.Selvaraj; (5) S.Rajaram; (6) R.Leela Vanasutha; (7) G.Gurusamy; (8) A.Bala Rajalakshi; (9) A.Rathinam; (10) P.Pakirisamy; (11) Lisi Glori; (12) M.Umarani; (13) S.Venkatakrishnan; (14) Jeyabala Jeyaraj; (15) Inbavani; (16) P.Mani; (17) Rajkumar Sasariyar; (18) S.Francis; (19) R.S.Pandian
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Jun 2008]
Petition to challenge seniority list - Petitioner submitted that in view of affidavit of the respondents wherein respondents agreed that applicants who were promoted to the post of Headmaster (Middle School) in the absence of statutory rules would be reverted and replaced by the eligible persons based on the existing rules, nothing remained to be decided - Petition dismissed
|
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Theni vs (1) Murugan; (2) Rengaraj
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 20 Jun 2008]
Workmen's Compensation Act - Whether an action under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be properly found without establishing that the injury sustained was in the course of or out of employment? - Whether the applicant was entitled to any compensation under the W.C.Act in the absence of any proof that he was a workman under the first opposite party? - Held, without establishing the relationship of master and servant between the parties and without establishing that the accident arose out of and in the course of one's employment, the action under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be founded in law - First respondent/claimant has been employed by the second respondent/first respondent for the purpose of his job of plucking mangoes and carrying the same as a load man and the mere fact that the first respondent/claimant has lent services as load man, the same cannot be excluded from the definition of 'workman'; relationship of master and servant between the parties has been established so as to bring the first respondent/claimant within the category of 'workman' under the Act; the very fact that the first respondent/claimant has deposed in his evidence (cross-examination) that his job is to maintain the grove of the second respondent/first respondent, shows his relationship by contract of service between them - Appeal dismissed.
|
Medical Council of India, Represented By Its Secretary, New Delhi vs (1) Karpaga Vinayaga Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Run By Karpaga Vinayaga Educational Trust, Represented By Its Managing Trustee, Saroja Ragupathy, Chennai; (2) Secretary (Health), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi; (3) Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 20 Jun 2008]
Medical Council of India Regulations, 1999 - Whether single Judge had rightly directed the appellant-MCI to cause inspection of the petitioner-Institute and forward the inspection report to the second respondent-Central Government, which in turn, was directed to consider the same on merits, within a specified period? - Held, Medical Council of India is duty bound under Cl. 6 of the Scheme to evaluate the application in the first instance in terms of the desirability and prima-facie feasibility of setting up of such Medical College at the proposed location - Though it is open for the MCI to assess the capability of the applicant to provide necessary sources and infrastructure for the scheme, may also seek further information, clarification etc., if there is any deficiency in the application it may communicate opinion in this regard under Cl. 7(8) of the Scheme, but it is not open for the MCI to argue that in spite of reference of such application by the Central Government to it, they will not act upon the same before the specific period in spite of the order passed by a Court of law - So far as the time schedule as shown in the schedule appended to the Regulations, 1999, is concerned, it is mandatory for the purpose of application for a particular session or for taking action for grant of permission to establish for such particular session - Appeal disposed of.
|
(1) Jayshree Zine; (2) Aparna Pawar; (3) Seema Kheta; (4) Priyanka Tokle; (5) Rita Sandanshiv; (5) Aparna Chavan vs (1) Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bombay; (2) State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 19 Jun 2008]
Whether action of respondents in not selecting petitioners on the posts of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector because of less height could be challenged in court? - Held, court would not interfere in the policy framed by the State and/or opinion of the expert bodies identifying the job requirements or criteria relating to educational or other qualifications including physical fitness - Appointing authority can lay down such pre-requisites conditions of eligibility for service as would be conducive to proper discipline amongst Government servants and they are also entitled to pick and choose from amongst the number of candidates offering themselves for employment under the government in accordance with the prescribed criteria, qualifications and requirements - Prescription of qualification by the respondents does not suffer from the element of arbitrariness besides the fact that any of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioners is devoid of any merit - Petition dismissed.
|
Ganesh Ashok Narhari vs (1) State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai; (2) Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Through Its Deputy Director (R) and Member Secretary, Pune Division, Queens Garden, Pune; (3) Sr.Adminstrative Officer, Ministry of Defence R and D Orgnization, R and D Establishment, Engrs.Dighi, Pune; (4) Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Pune
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 19 Jun 2008]
Challenge to the order invalidating caste certificate of petitioner - Held, since the petitioner on affidavit stated before Respondent No.2 - Committee about his genealogy, the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell, which mentions names of different persons who are not in relation with the petitioner, should not have been accepted by the Caste Committee - Petition disposed of.
|
(1) Liladhar Vasant Chogale; (2) P.K. Vijayan vs Union of India and Another
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 19 Jun 2008]
Petitions for direction to respondent to make Pension Scheme applicable to the petitioners and for quashing the order disentitling petitioner no.1 from switching to the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme from the Provident Fund - Held, petitioners cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong in filing these petitions after a lapse of 11-15 years, respectively, by which time, the record is no longer available with the respondent no.2 - Petitions dismissed.
|
T.Thavasimuthu vs District Collector, Tuticorin
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 19 Jun 2008]
Petition for direction to respondent to issue application for educational concession as per the G.O.Ms.No.1430 Education - Respondent submitted that grandson of the freedom fighter was eligible for the said concessions and if time frame was given to him for issuing such application to the petitioner, he would issue the same - Direction issued - Petition disposed of.
|
P. Sreenivas Sundar vs (1) Secretary To Government, Public Works Department, Chennai; (2) Chief Engineer - General, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 18 Jun 2008]
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - Whether the respondents were justified in initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and imposing punishment of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect on charge of issuing cheques in favour of four co-operative Societies without verification of the genuineness of the said Societies? - Held, Petitioner having been cited as a witness to support the case of the prosecution, which is filed against the Superintending Engineer, petitioner cannot be proceeded for the very same set of allegations u/r. 17(b) of the TNCS Rules, 1955 as it amounts to taking inconsistent stand before different forum, more particularly, taking one stand before the judicial forum and taking a different stand before the departmental authorities - Petitioner acted as per the directions of the Superintending Engineer and he has no power to verify the genuineness of the Societies, for whom the higher authority has directed to make cheque payments - Petitions allowed.
|
M.Rukmani vs (1) Government of Tamilnadu, Represented By The Secretary To Government, Rural Development Department, Madras; (2) Collector, Chidambaranar
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jun 2008]
Petition to regularise petitioner's services - At the stage of hearing of petition District Collector passed order regularizing service of petitioner - Petition dismissed.
|
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Divisional Controller, Jalgaon vs Madhukar Shamrao Patil
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 16 Jun 2008]
Whether Industrial Court had rightly set aside the order of Labour court holding that misconduct of giving used tickets to passenger having proved against delinquent was of minor and technical nature as respondent had put in clean service of 17 years? - Supreme Court has held that such acts of misappropriation and corruption should be viewed very seriously - Held, Industrial Court has failed to appreciate the things in proper perspective - Petition allowed.
|
Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon, Through Executive Engineer, Girna Kalwa Nutanikarana, Jalgaon vs Bhanudas Nathu Patil
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 16 Jun 2008]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Whether Labour Court was justified in granting reinstatement even when Division itself was to be closed and that there was no budgetary provision made for it? - Held, even though there is breach of s. 25F of the ID Act, 1947, in view of the fact that the Division itself was to be closed and that there was no budgetary provision made for it and as such there was no work which could be taken up by the Division; the order of reinstatement should not have been passed; it is a case wherein compensation ought to have been granted - Petition allowed.
|
State of West Bengal and Others vs Kamal Sengupta and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Jun 2008]
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Whether a Tribunal established u/s. 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior Court or on the basis of subsequent event/development? - Held, power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision u/s. 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court u/s. 114 read with O. 47, r. 1 of CPC, 1908 - Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in O. 47, r. 1 and not otherwise - An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power u/s. 22(3)(f) - Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review; party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier - Appeal allowed.
|
(1) Senior Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Cuddalore; (2) Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chennai vs (1) Inspector of Labour, Cuddalore; (2) P. Sivakami; (3) R. Illanjiam; (4) R. Chinnammal; (5) M. Kuppaayi; (6) C. Pappa; (7) P. Thavamani; (8) T. Selvanathan
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Jun 2008]
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 ; Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 - Whether petitioner rightly contended that Tamil Nadu Supplies Corporation having been established by the State Government, Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 could be applied against the Civil Supplies Corporation Limited? - Division Bench in T.N.Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. B.Purishothaman held that 'Corporation' is not an establishment under the Government of Tamil Nadu - Held, petitioners are not justified in contending that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by other respondents - U/s. 3 of the TN IE(CPSW) Act, 1981 it is the duty of the petitioners to give permanent status to the contesting respondents in these writ petitions on their completion of 480 days of service within a period of 24 calendar months - Petition dismissed.
|
A.Thangaraj vs (1) Director of Elementary Education, Madras; (2) District Elementary Education Officer, Dindigul Anna; (3) Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Athoor Panchayat Union, Chinnalapatty, Dindigul Anna; (4) A.Muthu
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Jun 2008]
Whether claim of applicant to have been posted at the top of seniority list had been rightly rejected? - Applicant had been given the promotion as Middle School Headmaster and had joined the post, on 30.6.95, forenoon whereas 4th respondent had joined the post of Primary School Headmaster, on 30.6.95, after noon - Held, petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent - Promotion given to the 4th respondent is in accordance with the rules and instructions applicable to such promotion and it is in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.400 - Petition dismissed.
|
|