Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court Rules Defendant Breached Contract, Orders Full Compensation for Plaintiff's Substantial Financial Damages

        Rajinder Singh Versus The State of Punjab and Ors.

        Rajinder Singh Versus The State of Punjab and Ors. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

        The primary legal issue in this judgment is whether the promotion of respondent No. 3 to the position of Deputy Director (Health Services) was valid, given the statutory requirements under the Punjab Civil Medical (State Service Class I) Rules, 1972. The specific questions considered include:

        1. Whether respondent No. 3 met the requisite qualifications for promotion as stipulated by Rule 9A of the PCMS Class I Rules.

        2. Whether the notification dated 9th April 1989, which declared PCMS Class II as PCMS Class I, could substitute for an amendment to the statutory rules.

        ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

        Issue 1: Eligibility for Promotion under Rule 9A

        Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 9A of the PCMS Class I Rules mandates that a candidate for the post of Deputy Director must have been a member of the service for a minimum of ten years. "Service" is defined as the Punjab Civil Medical (State Service Class I).

        Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that respondent No. 3 had not completed the requisite ten years of service as defined by the rules at the time of his recommendation for promotion. Therefore, he was ineligible for the post under the statutory criteria.

        Key evidence and findings: It was undisputed that respondent No. 3 did not meet the ten-year service requirement at the relevant time, as per Rule 9A and Rule 2(2) of the PCMS Class I Rules.

        Application of law to facts: The Court applied the clear language of Rule 9A to the facts, determining that the promotion violated the statutory requirement of ten years of service.

        Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the promotion was invalid due to the lack of requisite service tenure, while the respondent contended that the notification equating PCMS Class II with Class I sufficed for eligibility. The Court rejected the latter argument.

        Conclusions: The Court concluded that the promotion was invalid as respondent No. 3 did not meet the statutory service requirement.

        Issue 2: Validity of the Notification as a Substitute for Rule Amendment

        Relevant legal framework and precedents: The statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution govern service conditions. Any alteration to these rules requires formal amendment.

        Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that statutory rules cannot be altered by a government notification. The notification dated 9th April 1989, which purported to equate PCMS Class II with Class I, could not substitute for a formal amendment of the rules.

        Key evidence and findings: The notification itself acknowledged that amendments to the service rules were necessary, indicating that the government was aware that a mere notification was insufficient.

        Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that statutory rules require formal amendment for any changes, and a notification cannot override this requirement.

        Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument that the notification sufficed was dismissed by the Court, which held that such a course would undermine the constitutional and statutory framework.

        Conclusions: The Court concluded that the notification could not legally substitute for an amendment to the statutory rules, and thus, the promotion based on it was invalid.

        SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

        The Court held that:

        "No Government Order, Notification or Circular can be a substitute for the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. Following any other course would be disastrous inasmuch as it would deprive the security of tenure and right of equality conferred upon the civil servants under the constitutional scheme."

        Core principles established include the necessity of adhering to statutory rules for promotions and the invalidity of using notifications as substitutes for formal rule amendments.

        The final determination was that the promotion of respondent No. 3 was contrary to law and was set aside. The Court directed the respondent-State to appoint a new Departmental Promotion Committee to consider eligible candidates for the post of Deputy Director, Health Services, in accordance with the service rules, ignoring the notification dated 9th April 1989.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found