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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1433

FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
J. S. Parihar – Appellant
Versus
Ganpat Duggar – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard the counsel on both sides.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench dated April 3, 1996 made in Special Civil appeal Nos. 1 & 2 of 1995. The facts are not in dispute. The controversy relates to the preparation of the seniority list of the engineers in Rajasthan Civil Engineering Services (Public Health Branch). In W.P.No. 560/79 by order dated October 6, 1988 the Division Bench of the High Court declared the seniority list prepared with retrospective effect in terms of the amended Rules as unconstitutional; it accordingly quashed the list and directed preparation of the seniority list afresh to determine the inter se seniority on that basis and to grant promotion to the appellants within the specified time. The same order came to be reiterated by order of another Division Bench dated September 9, 1989 made in W.P. No. 1074/80. It was further reiterated in the order dated March 22, 1990. When the seniority list came to be prepared, the contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the "Act"). The learned single Judge on consideration of the merits in the senior







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