Back
VIVEK AGARWAL
Vidya Bhushan Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
1. These writ petitions are filed claiming directions to the respondents to correct the date of appointment of the petitioner as 3.3.2011 in impugned list Annexure-P/12 wherein name of the petitioner in W.P. No.26990/2021 is shown at serial No.175 and his initial date of appointment in service is shown as 23.7.2015 and the name of another petitioner-Rajbendra Mishra is mentioned at serial No.182.
2. It is submitted that in fact these petitioners were working under different departments of the State and they competed in the entrance examination which was conducted by M.P. Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and for the Forest Rangers. Petitioners cleared upto main examination but were not allowed to participate in the interview process on the ground that they were overage.
3. It is submitted that then one of the petitioners namely Vidya Bhushan Mishra filed W.P. No.1157/2011 which was allowed vide order dated 10.3.2015 whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court held that in terms of the provisions contained in Clause-7 of the advertisement which provided age relaxation upto the maximum age of 38 years even to the employees of local
Officers are entitled to Senior Time Scale upon completing four years of service, irrespective of passing departmental exams; their substantive rights are protected.
Seniority depression for delayed joining on own request upheld per rules; claims barred by delay, non-joinder; no parity with dissimilar cases; statutory rules govern over equity claims.
In service jurisprudence a distinction is made between a "substantive appointment” and an "officiating appointment While substantive appointment confers on the person so appointed a substantive right....
Notional service from delayed appointment due to State error counts for IPS promotion eligibility via Rule 3 relaxation of 8-year requirement; mechanical rejection quashed, mandating Review Committee....
The court established that training periods for direct recruits are not counted as service until successful completion, impacting seniority rights.
Retrospective promotion cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne in the cadre. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the 2002 Rules was found inapplicable to determine the int....
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
