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

1998 Supreme(SC) 853

S.P.BHARUCHA, M.K.MUKHERJEE, G.T.NANAVATI
MAHESH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


ORDER

1.Delay condoned.

2. The special leave petitions were placed before this Bench of three Judges by reason of the following order:

"Shri S.B. Sanyal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the impugned judgment, the High Court has placed reliance on the earlier judgment of this Court in Dilbag Singh v. State of V.P.1 The learned counsel has submitted that in Dilbag Singh easel this Court has failed to take note of the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the U.P. Non-technical (Class II) Services (Appointment of Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1980 which fixes the cut-off date 6-8-1978 and that the benefit of seniority under Rule 5 is available only in respect of persons in whose case the process of recruitment was concluded or commenced prior to that date. The submission is that Dilbag Singh easel needs reconsideration. We consider it appropriate that the matters may be placed before a Bench of three Honble Judges. We order accordingly." 3. The Uttar Pradesh Non-technical (Class II/Group B) Services (Appointment of Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1980, are the rules which require consideration. For the purposes of showing that the aforesaid judgment in








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