The Union of India assailed the order passed by the Gujarat High Court dated before this Court, through Civil Appeal Nos.7514-7515 of 2005 ( Union of India & Ors. The Gujarat High Court by its order dated, upheld the order of the CAT, Ahmedabad, dated. Direct recruits separately filed Special Civil Application no.1512 of 2004 ( Virender Kumar v. Parma (Special Civil Appeal no.3574 of 2004). The decision rendered by the CAT, Ahmedabad dated was assailed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Gujarat High Court”), in Union of India v. The implicit effect of the aforesaid determination was, that the date of arising of the direct recruit vacancies, or the date of initiation of the process of recruitment, or the date when the Staff Selection Commission had made recommendations for the filling up direct recruit vacancies, were inconsequential for determination of seniority of direct recruits.ģ. In its determination the CAT, Ahmedabad held, that seniority of direct recruits would have to be determined with reference to the date of their actual appointment. Both the OA No.92 of 2003 and OA no.123 of 2003 were decided by a common order dated. Another Original Application, on the same subject matter, being OA no.123 of 2003 ( N.R. The said Original Application had been filed by direct recruits. One of the matters in hand came to be considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the CAT, Ahmedabad”) in R.C.
Direct recruits and promotees are pitted on opposite sides.Ģ. The present controversy is a dispute of inter se seniority between Income Tax Inspectors of the Income Tax Department.
0 kommentar(er)
