CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 1997 › State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand .

State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand .

Supreme Court of India · 11 February 1997 · [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1157

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
11 February 1997
Case no.
SLP(C) No. 3551 of 1997
Reported as
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 1157
Result
Dismissed
Bench
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G.B. Pattanaik
Length
1 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

PETITIONER:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
TARACHAND & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997 Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik Aruneshwar Gupta and Manoj K. Das, Advs. for the Petitioner

ORDER

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

Delay condoned.

The controversy raised in this case is already coverd by a judgment of this Court reported in Shambhu Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (1995 (supp.2) SCC 431 wherein this court, on consideration of rule 28-B of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954 and its explanation as it stood prior to November 3, 1991, had interpreted and held that the rule requires that the record of the officer should be outstanding or consistently very good and that would imply that it should be so for the entire period under consideration. The view of the High court, therefore, was upheld and held that the amendment made on 30-11-1991, being subsequent to the orders of promotions which were challenged in those cases could not apply to the cases prior to the amendment came into force. The same ratio applies to the facts in this case. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting issuance of notice for interference.

The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Ask CaseMinister about State of Rajasthan v. Tarachand .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp