SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 2190

G.T.NANAVATI, K.RAMASWAMY
Ram Ganesh Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.

2. In spite of serious criticism by the High Court, in the earlier proceedings between the parties, that the Government had abused its powers and indulged into favouritism and nepotism, the Government has again tried to frustrate the legitimate rights of the direct recruits in order to favour and protect those ad hoc promotees who are alleged to be relations and favourites of Ministers, Members of Legislative Assemblies and Secretaries to the Government. The wrong committed is not only required to be set at naught, but the Government also deserves to be criticised for acting in that manner.

3. Even though U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Rules (for short the Rules) were framed in 1966 for recruitment to the various posts mentioned therein and even though under Rule 20 the posts of Sahayak Nagar Adhikaris had to be filled up in equal numbers by promotion and direct recruitment, the Government went on making ad hoc appointments to those posts for ten years. Even when the process of recruitment for the said posts had started in 1976 and in all 14 persons were selected by the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the PSC) the Governmen










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top