Showing posts with label Service Matters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Service Matters. Show all posts
Sunday, 24 February 2019
Contention that prior to the amendment rules, the promotion to the cadre of District Judges was based on the principle of "Seniority-cum-merit" and now as per amended rules pursuant to the directions of Supreme Court, the principle has now been changed to "merit-cum-seniority" and this has seriously affected the rights of the members of the Civil Judges (Senior Division)--Contention rejected
Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Monday, 18 February 2019
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The respondent-writ petitioner as an Officer of the Bank is bound by the salary structure approved by the Bank for its Officers. The decision of the Standing Committee is a part of the decision-making in respect of salary payable to the employees of the Banks. The employee of a Bank has no right that he should be associated with the decision-making process in respect of the fixation of salary. However, if the question of reasonableness of salary arises, then in exercise of power of judicial review, the Court may examine the decision-making process.
Saturday, 9 February 2019
Monday, 28 January 2019
Sunday, 20 January 2019
Saturday, 12 January 2019
Appointment of Judge--Once the Government on being satisfied that a suitable candidate who was earlier appointed as an Additional Judge is suitable for appointment as a permanent Judge, the elaborate consultation has not been considered necessary--Chief Justice of High Court not required to consult collegium of High Court.
Service Law—Higher Qualification—Possession of higher qualification does not always mean that candidate has requisite prescribed lower qualification for the post Service Law—Qualification—It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications
Saturday, 5 January 2019
Tuesday, 1 January 2019
Service and Labour Law--Absence without leave--Dismissal from service--Misconduct--Proportionality of punishment--Appellant claimed that punishment of termination is disproportionate to gravity of offence charged--No mitigating circumstances could be shown--Similar offence committed earlier--Punishment of simplicitor dismissed not disproportionate to gravity of offence--Appeal dismissed
Friday, 28 December 2018
Service Law—Penalty—Judicial Review—The imposition of a penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer—Unless the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges which are proved, the element of discretion which is attributed to the employer cannot be interfered with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)