Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
A.Mohandas S/o. The Late Arun – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.85 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The said O.A. was one filed by the respondents herein- applicants, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, who were then working as part-time Scavenger and part-time Sweeper respectively, under RMS ‘CT’ Division (Railway Mail Service Calicut Division) under the administrative control of the 5th petitioner-1st respondent Superintendent, RMS ‘CT’ Division, Kozhikode.
2. The applicants had approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.85 of 2014 seeking a declaration that the delay in making promotion to Group ’D’ vacancies remaining unfilled applying ‘failing which’ clause in column (11) of the Schedule to Annexure A3 Department of Posts (Group D Posts) Recruitment Rules , 2002 (for brevity, the Recruitment Rules , 2002) shall not deny them full-service benefits with effect from the date of their entitlement, which they would have earned but for the failure of the Department to act in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 2002; and an appropriate order or direction, directing the respondents therei
Promotions for part-time casual labourers to Group D posts can be claimed under the 25% quota if vacancies exist in neighboring divisions, as clarified by the Tribunal's interpretation of the term 'n....
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.
The court upheld the authority of the State to adjust recruitment vacancies, emphasizing the proper application of statutory rules regarding 'year of recruitment' and ensuring adherence to constituti....
The right for promotion has to be considered only in the light of the existing rules in force on the date of consideration to the next level of promotion.
The court upheld the principle that recruitment vacancies must be determined based solely on existing vacancies for the recruitment year, excluding anticipated future vacancies per statutory rules.
Recruitment - plea raised by the petitioners is fallacious - As mere acquiring of qualification at a relevant point of time cannot give rise to an expectation, much less, legitimate expectation of ap....
Appointments made in violation of statutory rules are in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are in nullity.
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
