Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: comparative chart of corresponding sections of 1983 act Court: chennai Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.087 seconds)

Jan 04 2011 (TRI)

ic-43708n Lt Col Prithiviraj Patnaik Vs. Government of India, Through ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

Decided on : Jan-04-2011

..... for approval/nonapproval. in case, if any officer gets any relief through complaint etc in any acr after the selection board has been held, he is entitled to a special corresponding consideration by the selection board with his changes in profile and in case, he is approved at such special consideration, his original seniority remains protected. as per the applicable policy ..... the confidential reports are performance based and contain assessment of a reporting period. when the performance of the applicant was better, it was appreciated by the initiating officer (io). therefore, comparing performance of one year with other year is not correct and the assessment may vary depending upon performance of the personnel. hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. 6 ..... and staff appointments, honours and awards, disciplinary background, and not only the acr or one/few acrs etc. selection/rejection is based upon the overall profile of an officer and comparative merit within the batch as evaluated by the selection board. it is further submitted that every time the selection board is convened, the board is composed of different members. the ..... the said issue being barred by principles of res judicata or even constructive res judicata. after the constitution of this armed forces tribunal by virtue of the section 14(5) of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007, this tribunal is considered to sit in the arm chair of the selection board and decide the issues raised in the application before it both .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 2011 (HC)

Dr. T. Thirunalasundari Vs. the Registrar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-18-2011

..... ) of the table below shall consists of the vice-chancellor, a nominee of the chancellor a nominee of the government and the persons specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said table and in the case of appointment of a professor, assistant professor, reader or lecturer in a department ..... the legislative provision has to be given simple ordinary meaning, unless it leads to absurdity. if the ordinary english meaning to words is given, section 44(a) of the act does not lead to any absurd result, as contended. 31. the very fact, that the petitioner was holding the post of head of ..... for the petitioner, that marks was not correctively given cannot be gone into in this writ petition, nor it is for this court, to see the comparative merit of each candidate, as this court cannot substitute its opinion for that of experts. 20. the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, vehemently ..... allegations of mala fide against any of the members of the selection committee, and therefore, it is not for this court, now, to assess the comparative merit of the candidates, to come to a different conclusion or to hold the selection to be arbitrary. 37. for the reasons stated above, there ..... to knowledge. 5. the petitioner passed b.sc., special botany in 1978, and completed her m.sc., botany in 1980, and m.phil., in 1983, and thereafter was awarded doctorate degree in microbiology in 1988, and fabms in biomedical science in 2001. 6. the petitioner joined as lecturer in 1991 in .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //