2016 (7) TMI 1594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- 28-7-2016<br>W.A. Nos.2527 of 2012, 155 to 159 of 2014, 373, 374 and 569 of 2016 and W.P.Nos.18552, 18553, 21787 to 21789, 28021 to 28031, 27988 to 27997, 22595 to 22597, 26656 to 26661 and 31102 to 31105 of 2012, 18264 and 19683 of 2013 & Others - -<br>CST, VAT & Sales Tax<br>The Hon&#39;ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon&#39;ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.Nos. 41048, 40814, 40815, 7011, 7857 and 9926 of 2015 and 11118 and 17251 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.7542 and 7543 of 2016 For the Appellant : Mr.S.M.Subramaniam For the Respondent : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. V. Haribabu, Addl. G.P. for RR 2 and 3, Mr.T.Ayangaraprabhu for RR 4 to 6, No appearance for RR 1, 7 & 8, Mr. K. Krishnamoorthy for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal succeeded, the whole process would have to be nullified and to begin de nova, an aspect accepted by all the learned counsel for parties. 3.Fortunately, on the principles to be applied, there is no disagreement vis-a-vis the other matters now. It is in these circumstances it is agreed that a consent order may be recorded as to how the State Government would proceed qua the rights of other parties, but subject to the fate of the appeal referred to aforesaid. 4.The parties in the present matters, thus, agree that the four principles as set out by the Hon&#39;ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1454 of 1987 decided on 10.02.1999 (between State of Tamil Nadu vs. S.Sundararaj & Others), which formed the basis of the Division Bench J....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it cannot be so, over the implementation of the Division Benchorder of this Court, which has received the imprimatur of the Hon&#39;ble Supreme Court. He acknowledges that the seniority list was placed before the Hon&#39;ble Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings, but the caveat is that the said seniority list would operate upto the year 2010. This, he say so as the cadre strength remained the same till 2010 when the cadre strength was increased. There was a second increase in the cadre strength in 2013. His submission thus is that once the cadre strength increased, dependant on the ratio between the two groups as prescribed under the Rule and the principles laid down by the Hon&#39;ble Supreme Court, the seniority list would have to be....