CHAIRMAN PURI GRAMYA BANK Vs. ANANDA CHANDRA DAS
LAWS(SC)-1994-9-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on September 12,1994

Chairman Puri Gramya Bank Appellant
VERSUS
Ananda Chandra Das Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

NIRMALJEET KAUR & ORS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH GAUTAM VS. JITENDER KHANNA AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-422] [REFERRED TO]
INDERPREET SINGH ARORA VS. PUNJAB POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-1-307] [REFERRED]
P. SHANMUGHA PRIYA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
R. SANTHOSH KUMAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR MAHENDRU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1996-2-53] [REFERRED]
R. RAJARAJAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-192] [REFERRED TO]
M.RAJINIKANTH VS. S.JEGADEESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-867] [REFERRED TO]
P. SIDDAPPA VS. THE CHAIRMAN [LAWS(APH)-2014-10-124] [REFERRED TO]
B BABU VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2009-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
NURSES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE [LAWS(GAU)-2005-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
P SRILAKSHMI VS. NIMS [LAWS(APH)-1997-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA M.PEDNEKAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF GOA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-107] [REFERRED TO]
K P DUBEY VS. CHAIRMAN CAT [LAWS(DLH)-2002-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-326] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN MISHRA AND OTHERS VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-282] [REFERRED]
SRI BICHITRANANDA PRADHAN VS. VICE CHAIRMAN, CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2010-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
SUNILKUMAR BIRADAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-202] [REFERRED TO]
MANJIRA GRAMEENA BANK SANGAREDDY MEDAK DIST VS. M ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2001-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID LALLAWMKIMA FANAI VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-103] [REFERRED TO]
CHAITANYA GRAMEENA BANK MORISPET TENALI VS. S V L NARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1998-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
G KOTESWARA RAO VS. CHAITANYA GRAMEENA BANK TENALI GUNTUR DIST [LAWS(APH)-1997-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH NARAIN DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-193] [REFERRED TO]
B. ANBARASAN VS. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-191] [REFERRED TO]
S SARASWATHI AMMAL VS. MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-364] [REFERRED TO]
NINGTHOUJAM MADHUNIMAI SINGH VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLESH TANWAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-99] [REFERRED]
K P DUBEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-102] [REFERRED TO]
G BHEEMSEN RAO VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-137] [REFERRED TO]
KABINDRA KUMAR DEY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2001-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA KUMARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-7-238] [REFERRED TO]
P SAIDDAPPA VS. CHAIRMAN RAYALASEEMA GRAMEENA BANK [LAWS(APH)-2005-8-120] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-147] [REFERRED TO]
S GOVINDARAJULU D J NOW WORKING ON C D AS CHIEF LEGAL ADVISOR VS. HIGH COURT ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2007-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM DEV VS. RANBIR SINGH [LAWS(J&K)-2006-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-11-107] [REFERRED TO]
INTZAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-8-31] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of orissa in ojc No. 1007 of 1988, dated 4/3/1992. The respondent and others were selected by direct recruitment as managers of Rural Bank. His rank was No. 9 in the merit list. He was directed to be given seniority on the basis of the date of his reporting to duty. It is reported that the first respondent is dead. The only question in this case is that what shall be the ranking among the direct recruits Is it the date on which they joined duty or according to the ranking given by the Selection Board On comparative evaluation of the respective merits of the candidates for direct recruitment, the Board had prepared the merit list on the basis of the ranking secured at the time of the selection. It is settled law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. The high court is, therefore, wholly wrong in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining reports given by the candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment and length of service on its basis. The view, therefore, is wrong. However, we need not interfere with the order, since the first respondent has died.
(3.)The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.