Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

State Of Nagaland And Anr. Versus Toulvi Kibami And Anr.

2003 (10) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (civil) 2533 of 1998 - Dated:- 16-10-2003 - V.N. Khare And S.B. Sinha, JJ. JUDGMENT: In the State of Nagaland, the promotion of Superintending Engineer to the post of Additional Chief Engineer in the Department of Public Health and Engineering .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

holder and at the relevant time was working as officiating Superintending Engineer. On 26.3.1991, the Government of Nagaland promoted respondent No. 2 as Additional Chief Engineer. This promotion was challenged by respondent No. 1 who is a degree-hol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-holders. This contention of respondent No. 1 was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Consequently, the promotion of respondent No. 2 was set aside. Aggrieved, the State of Nagaland preferred a letters patent appeal which was allo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er the relevant Rules on the basis of they having rendered meritorious service. It is not disputed that consequent upon the direction of the High Court, the Government took a decision in the year 1997 whereby the Government appropriately amended the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t rules and brought in the line with the original approved Rules so as to include the reference to eligibility of cases of exceptionally meritorious person who are diploma-holders for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer with retrospect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ated 4.9.1995. The Division Bench allowed the review petition and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court dated 8.1.1998, the appellants are in appeal before us. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version