Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
KANUBHAI SALAMSINH DABHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
1. Heard Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 to 5.
2. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) admit this petition.
(ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the illegal, illogical, discriminatory, arbitrary action of the respondent authorities of taking decision and of subjecting the petitioners to appear in the departmental examination on the basis of Gujarat Civil Services [Conditions of service relating to departmental examination] (General), Rules, 2015 which have been published on the basis of the Notification dated 31/3/2015 and be pleased to hold that the Rules published through Notification dated 31/3/2015 would not apply retrospectively to the petitioners and, therefore, the action of the respondent authorities of subjecting and treating the petitioners as eligible only on passing of the examination prescribed under New Rules i.e. under Notification dated 31/3/2015 may be declared as illegal, illogical, violative of
The court ruled that the Gujarat Civil Services (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) Rules, 2015 are prospective and do not apply retrospectively to petitioners, who failed to....
The court ruled that the petitioner must comply with the new departmental examination rules for promotion, as the old rules do not apply retrospectively.
The exemption from passing the departmental examination for promotion based on eligibility as of 01.09.2022 does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it is a reasonable classification.
Exemption from departmental examination can be granted retrospectively; discrimination against similarly situated officers violates Article 14.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that eligibility for higher pay-scale benefits is determined by the completion of service years, irrespective of the date of passing the departm....
The court established that acceptance of appointment conditions, including language proficiency requirements, precludes later claims for exemption based on age.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of 'merit cum seniority' was applicable to the promotional posts in question, and the petitioner failed to satisfy this test, le....
when a new post is created, the concept of Rules obtaining when the vacancies arose is inappiicable as what is created is a new post on account of re-structuring of the cadre.
Employees are entitled to higher pay-scales from the date due, regardless of examination delays caused by administrative inaction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
