news details |
|
|
HC disposes of petition challenging official's seniority | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT JAMMU, Sept 11: The state high court has disposed of a petition challenging the seniority restoration of a private respondent as ophthalmic assistant from April 26, 1988. The respondent's promotion as a senior refractionist from September 7, 1994, was also challenged. After hearing the advocates for petitioner Rajni Gupta, the state and the private respondents, high court judge, Justice Sunil Hali observed that as the petitioner's promotion as senior refractionist was questioned by the private respondent, the respondent No 4 was senior to the petitioner because he was appointed in 1988 while the petitioner was appointed in 1989. The contention of the petitioner in her LPA was that her appointment as senior refractionist had not been set aside by the single judge and the issue as regards the seniority was required to be determined by the official respondents and not by the court. The impugned orders had been issued while plementing the 'writ court' directions on August 16, 2000, on the premise that respondent No 4 was appointed in 1988. The issue involved in that writ petition was that on his transfer to the medical education department, respondent No 4 was not given the benefit of the service rendered by him in the health department. The Court directed the official respondents that seniority of respondent No 4 would be given from the date he was given the substantive appointment in health department. It was by virtue of this order that seniority of respondent No 4 was determined retrospectively. This issue does not, in any way, affect the rights of the petitioner. As such the plea raised by the petitioner that pendancy of the LPA was a bar for issuing the impugned orders could not sustain. With these observations, Justice Hali dismissed the petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
|
BSE
Sensex |
|
NSE
Nifty |
|
|
|
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|