Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules requires an overall assessment of the service record; courts should not interfere unless the power is exercised mala fide or arbitrarily.
Source excerpt
The amended Note 5 of Fundamental Rule 56 (m) applies to employees in service before December 15, 1979, permitting correction of date of birth within five years after amendment; since the respondent’s application for correction was made outside the prescribed period and Tribunal's factual findings were not supported by records, the Tribunal’s order allowing correction is unsustainable.
Source excerpt
District Magistrate failed to comply with Section 24(4) CrPC and Para 7.06, 7.08 of the Legal Remembrancer Manual by not preparing a panel in genuine consultation with Sessions Judge. The administrative comments made were general and not individualized. Renewal/extension is not a right but must follow prescribed statutory process; judicial review is permissible to ensure fair procedure in the appointment process.
Source excerpt
The period of ad hoc service as Assistant Engineer prior to regularisation on 26-2-1980 under relaxation of rules cannot be counted towards seniority because the appointments were not made in accordance with the applicable statutory rules (Rules 9, 10, or 11), but as stop-gap arrangements contrary to the requirements for regular appointment. Thus, the writ petitioners are entitled to seniority only from the date of regularisation (26-2-1980), and not from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment.
Source excerpt
Ad-hoc appointees regularised through Court orders, not recruited according to UPSC rules, are not entitled to seniority based on such officiation; their seniority must be fixed below all direct recruits, both outsiders and in-service, recruited through UPSC. Among themselves, seniority will be governed by dates of initial appointment.
Source excerpt
Restricting the applicability of the revised Memorandum dated 16.6.1967 only to those absorbed after its issuance is arbitrary, lacks nexus with the object of protecting pensionary benefits, defeats fair play and justice, and violates Articles 14 and 16. All government servants absorbed in public undertakings and meeting conditions should receive the revised benefits, irrespective of absorption date.
Source excerpt
The appellants, having acquired the required qualifications before the date of interview and being selected on merit, were entitled to appointment and seniority. The technical bar adopted by the Division Bench was incorrect; the eligibility requirement may be analogously relaxed to ensure the best talent is recruited, as long as fairness is maintained and no mala fides are shown.
Source excerpt
The six offices forming the Madras Local Head Office are considered one unit under clause 1(d). Refusal of the third and final offer within any branch of this unit exhausts the options and results in permanent debarment from promotion to Head Clerk. The High Court was incorrect in its interpretation to the contrary.
Source excerpt
Duties attached to the post of Superintendent Deaf Mute and Blind School are supervisory and not teaching in nature as per the original advertisement; therefore, the respondent was not entitled to continue up to age 60 under the teachers rule and was rightly retired at age 58.
Source excerpt
The Chandigarh Administration's decision to cancel the select list of candidates for the posts of conductors in CTU, on grounds of unfair and injudicious preparation by the Selection Board, is valid; neither law nor principles of natural justice require affording an opportunity of hearing to members of the Selection Board or select list candidates before such cancellation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
