REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

USHA RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE Appellant

V/S

STATE OF TRFPURA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

D. GANESH RAS PATNAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
MERVYN CONTINHO VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND DATTATRAY KELKAR VS. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS [REFERRED TO]
S C JAISINGHANI C K TIKKU MOHAN CHANDRA JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
N K CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
A JANARDHANA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A N PATHAK VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF DEFENCE [REFERRED TO]
DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S D GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA PRASAD SHARMA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CH PATNAIK NALINIKANTA MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR RATH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PRAKASH GUPTA VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
P N PREMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
M SUBBA REDDY VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MIZORAM VS. DEVENDRA PRASAD SHARMA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS it an invariable principle of service jurisprudence that a person, who has been promoted into a cadre of a service, subsequent to the making of a direct recruitment thereto, must necessarily be treated junior to the direct recruit, for, the promotee cannot be made, or be treated as, senior to the direct recruit from a date, when the promotee was not even born into the cadre of the service concerned? This is the principal question, which the present writ appeal has raised.

(2.) THIS writ appeal has been heard on two different dates, namely, on 28. 1. 2005 and 24. 2. 2006.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel, for the appellants, and Mr. U. B. Saha, learned Senior Government Advocate, Tripura, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. While we have also heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondents, on 28. 1. 2005, none has, however, appeared on behalf of the private respondents on 24. 2. 2006.

Click here to view full judgment.

USHA RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address