- The post of Executive Director AIMS is mentioned in entry No.1 — It clearly shows that the only method which can be adapted for filing in the post of Executive Director AIMS is to transfer an officer of Health Department/AIMS who is already in B-20. Shabir Kayani v. Mushtaq Ahmad Gardazi and 4 others 2000 SCR 557 (B)
- Schedule entries Nos.11&18 — Promotion of — Perusal of entries Nos. 11 and 18 in the schedule to the amended rules of 1984 shows that both, Dr. Zafar Ahmad khan and Dr. Shabbir Ahmad Mir, were qualified for promotion to grade B-18 — Contention that only Dr. Shabbir Ahmad was qualified to be promoted to grade B-18 because the promotion was reserved for graded specialists is not tenable for the simple reason that after amendment in entry No.11 to promotion to grade B-18 also became available to other categories envisaged in the said entry — Thus, those who were eligible for promotion to grade B-18 were to be considered by the Selection Board and not Dr. Shabbir Ahmad appellant, alone — However in the instant case the Secretary of the concerned Department illegally excluded the name of Dr. Zafar Ahmad from the panel by mentioning that only Dr. Shabbir Ahmad was eligible for promotion to grade B-18 — The said observation made in the working paper was incorrect and contradictory to the aforesaid rules — Thus, we are of the considered view that Service Tribunal has rightly held that both, Dr. Zafar Ahmad and Dr. Shabbir Ahmad Mir were qualified for promotion to grade B-18. Zafar Ahmad Khan v. Azad Govt. and 4 others 2002 SCR 247 (A)
- Appellants in view of the entries in column 7 S.No.19 read with S.8 of Civil Servants Act, 1976 lacked the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment/promotion to the post of Senior Dental Surgeon. Dr. Abdul Ghaffar Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2008 SCR 230 (M)
- R. 4-C — Operation of rule — Effect — The operation of said Rule is not retrospective rather it is prospective. Javed Akhter Rathore (Dr.) v. Azad Govt. of the state of J&K 2013 SCR 296 (B)
- R. 4-C — Promotion — Merit-cum-seniority — Amendment of rule — Service Tribunal dismissed appeal on ground that the seats were not reserved for Medical Specialists; seniority list was framed a long time after whom appellant fell at S. No. 87 and he had never challenged seniority list whereas respondents were seniors as compared to appellant — Factual/legal aspects — Appellant was at S. No.87 in the seniority list while other twenty-six specialists who were promoted were in-between S.Nos. 24 to 61 of the seniority list — Appellant never challenged seniority list; he was far behind from respondents in the seniority list — Hence the Selection Board found respondents fit for promotion as specialists in B-19 — Respondents could not be defined of right already accrued to them in the light of R. 4 — Operation of rule 4-C is not retrospective rather it is prospective — Respondents had already been promoted as Medical Specialists a long time before amendment in rules — Case of respondents would be governed by the rules holding the field when they were promoted as Medical Specialists in BS-18 — Respondents were already promoted as Medical Specialists — Selection Board had to judge only respondents’ sustainability in light of rules which were applicable at time of their promotion as Medical Specialists in BS-18 — Civil appeal dismissed. PROMOTION — (Merit-cum-seniority) Service tribunal dismissed appeal on ground that the seats have not reserved for Medical Specialists and appellant had never challenged seniority list. Supreme Court dismissed appeal. Javed Akhter Rathore (Dr.) v. Azad Govt. of the state of J&K 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 296 (C)
error: Content is protected !!