NRI Legal Services NRI Legal Services NRI Legal Services NRI Legal Services NRI Legal Services , https://nrilegalservicesbrampton.tumblr.com NRI Legal Services NRI Legal Services NRI Legal Services ; , [1995] INSC 545; (1995) 6 SCC 684, a question had arisen as to whether a person in SC or ST category who gets accelerated promotion because of reservation would also get consequential seniority in the higher post if he gets that promotion earlier than his senior in general category and this Court held that such an employee belonging to SC/ST category on promotion would not get consequential seniority and his seniority will be governed by the panel position. I do not intend to express any opinion with regard to the validity of the Rule.
If the rejection was improper the petition would have to be allowed. He has been allocated certain areas to frame rules. Section 69 empowers the Inspector General to make rules consistent with the Act. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. However, there is another three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur v.
In the absence of any rule to opine that by no stretch of imagination can a cancellation deed be accepted or registered by the Registering Authority does not appear to be correct. It was alleged in the petition that Patels and Shanbhogs were hereditary village officers and therefore were not holders of offices of profit under the Government. There is no unconstitutionality involved in this. It was said that they were really representatives of the village community, and only acted as agents of that community or as liaisons between it and the Government, and that in any event they were not holders of offices of profit because the amount of money receivable by them in respect of their offices was very small and out of all proportion to the work done by them.
He hastened to add that such reasonable period can only be as an illustration and not as a fixed period. As a result of this rejection two candidates were left to contest the election and the appellant, who was one of them, was declared elected as he obtained the larger number of votes at the poll. The petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal by its order dated September 10, 1957. The nomination papers filed by three persons, namely, Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao for election from that constituency were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the first two of them were Patels and the third a Shanbhog of certain villages in Mysore and as such they were all holders of offices of’ profit under the Mysore Government and consequently disqualified from membership of the Assembly’ under Art.
The appellant was the sole respondent to that petition. The Rule actually provides the manner of verification of execution. It is permissible for the State to so provide Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) and that the High Court has wrongly not granted interest on solatium.
It held that the conditions of service of Patels and Shanbhogs were regulated by 1170 the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908, and that the mere fact that offices of Patels and Shanbhogs were hereditary was not by itself sufficient to establish that they were not offices under the Government. Hence, I am of the view that general observations in Thota Ganga Laxmi (supra) requires to be considered by a larger Bench. In short, it is open to the State, if it is so advised, to say that while the rule of reservation shall be applied and the roster followed in the matter of promotions to or within a particular service, class or category, the candidate promoted earlier by virtue of rule of reservation/roster shall not be entitled to seniority over his senior in the feeder category and that as and when a general candidate who was senior to him in the feeder category is promoted, such general candidate will regain his seniority over the reserved candidate notwithstanding that he is promoted subsequent to the reserved candidate.
It was held as under:- 24. Rule 26(k)(i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Act may come under any such regulatory measure. It seems to me that it has been broadly stated. Virpal Singh Chauhan And Ors. Steel Corporation (supra). It is a condition precedent for the purpose of execution and registration. National Fertilizers Corpn. In Union of India And Ors. It also held that Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao were in receipt of considerable remuneration and were, therefore, holding offices of profit.
He however floated a suggestion that even when no period of limitation is applicable for initiating action before the Commission, if this Court finds it necessary and in the interest of justice, then a reasonable period may be indicated by this Court for the aforesaid purpose. 100 (1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that the election of the appellant was void on the ground that the nomination papers of Hanumanthappa, Siddappa and Guru Rao had been improperly rejected.
Six electors of the Haribar constituency then filed the election petition for a declaration under s.