Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:BASANT LAL AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1992 BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1993 AIR 188 1992 SCR (1) 823 1992 SCC (2) 679 JT 1992 (2) 459 1992 SCALE (1)413 ACT:Civil Services:Indian Railways Establis...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:DELHI DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES’ UNION Vs. RESPONDENT:DELHI ADMINISTRATION, DELHI AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04/02/1992 BENCH:SAWANT, P.B. BENCH:SAWANT, P.B.JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 789 1992 SCR (1) 565 1992 SCC (4) 99 JT 1992 (1) 394 1992 SCALE (1)294 CITA...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:K.P.M. BASHEER ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT28/02/1992 BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1353 1992 SCR (1)1075 1992 SCC (2) 295 JT 1992 (3) 610 1992 SCALE (1)525 CITATOR INFO :D...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ORS. ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:KISHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1993 BENCH:JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH:JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION:1993 SCR (1) 269 1993 SCC (2) 84 JT 1993 (1) 298 1993 SCALE (1)183 ACT:Rajasthan Land Ac...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:JAMMI RAJA RAO Vs. RESPONDENT:ANJANEYASWAMI TEMPLE VALU ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT06/03/1992 BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1110 1992 SCR (2) 47 1992 SCC (3) 14 JT 1992 (2) 470 1992 SCALE (1)571 ACT:Andhra Pradesh Charitable ...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:SURENDRA PRASAD SINHA DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1992 BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1815 1992 SCR (2) 528 1993 SCC Supl. (1) 499 JT 1992 (3) 46 1992 SCALE (1)926 ACT:Limitation Act, 1963-Section ...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT:KAMDHENU CATTLE FEED INDUSTRIES DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1992 BENCH:[J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] ACT:Constitution of India, 1950:Article 14-Contractual transactions of State or its instrumentality-Essential requisites-No...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:D.K. SAHNI Vs. RESPONDENT:MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGANESE ORE INDIA LTD.AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT12/08/1992 BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION:1993 AIR 258 1992 SCR (3) 800 1992 SCC (4) 201 JT 1992 (4) 509 1992 SCALE (2)186 ACT:Manganese...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:Y. NARASIMHA RAO AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:Y. VENKATA LAKSHMI AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT09/07/1991 BENCH:SAWANT, P.B. BENCH:SAWANT, P.B.MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) CITATION:1991 SCR (2) 821 1991 SCC (3) 451 JT 1991 (3) 33 1991 SCALE (2)1 ACT:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 19. Dissolution o...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:RAVI RAMAN PRASAD AND ANR.Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT02/02/1993 BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (CJ) BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (CJ) RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION:1994 AIR 109 1993 SCR (1) 393 1993 SCC (2) 3 JT 1993 (4) 526 1993 SCALE (1)442 ACT:Code of Cri...