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

1993 Supreme(SC) 986

A.M.AHMADI, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Amrik Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
H.S.PARIHAR, K.LEHRI, P.PARMESHVARAN, S.N.TERDAL

Judgment

VENKATACHALA, J. :- Two short questions which require to be answered by us in deciding this appeal are, these:

1. Is the provision in the Instructions dated March 21, 1978 issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, prescribing the minimum period of service as Section Officer to make him eligible for promotion as Accounts Officer inconsistent with any of the provisions in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Accounts Officers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964, and hence void?

2. Was the Comptroller and Auditor General of India competent to issue Administrative Instructions dated March 21, 1978 ?

2. The Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Accounts Officers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964, to be referred to as the Rules, were made by the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution after consulting the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The Rules contained provisions which provided for certain matters relating to recruitment for the posts of Administrative Officers, Assistant Accounts Officers and Assistant Audit Officers in t














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