9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers contend that this direction implies a retrospective application of the revised formula on the quota for each cadre, since the promotions effected in the meanwhile were on an ad hoc basis - Held that:- The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is erroneous as the order did not state anywhere that the quota when changed will apply retrospectively. At best it could be said that according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a,Adv. Mr. V.K. Biju,Adv.Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv. ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel in support of the first contempt petition and Mr. J.K. Das, learned senior counsel in support of the second contempt petition. Both these petitions are filed alleging breach of the order dated 3.8.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1198 of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd it was left to the Government to alter the existing ratio after considering the representations of all the parties concerned. While disposing of the appeal and the writ petition this Court gave certain directions. Direction No.4 out of them read as follows: "4. Having perused one of the Office Orders (No.51/2011 dated 18th March, 2011), whereby some officers were promoted from Group 'B' to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, since the promotions effected in the meanwhile were on an ad hoc basis. That was not done. 5. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervening parties, Mr. Rajiv Nanda appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing onbehalf of the private respondents submitted that the submission made on behalf of the petitioners is erron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
