Task force to examine effect of N R Parmar case

Dear comrades,

Communication received from the CCI[CCA] setting up a task force to examine the effect of the judgement of Hon’ble SC of India in the case of UOI & Ors Vs. N R Parmar & Ors is posted.
Taskforce parmar

For full text of Parmar case judgement click here

Yours fraternally


8 Responses to Task force to examine effect of N R Parmar case

  1. Anonymous says:

    Please read para 29 to 33 of the Judgment ( N R Parmar) from which it will be quite evident that the the decision in N R Parmar cannot be taken as a yardstick for fixing interse seniority of direct recruits and promotes. From para 33 it is quite evident that the vacancy pertained to 1993, Dept. intimated SSC in 1993 , SSC advertised the vacancy in 1993 and Exam was also conducted in 1993. Supreme Court judgments are a precedent only if the facts precisely match.
    In para 29 the Hon’ble Apex Court has not used the word abinito (w.r.t. OM dt. 03.03.2008) but used the words ‘ deemed to be non-est to the extent that the same is in derogation of the earlier OMs ‘ In the concluding part of para 29 the Hon.’ble Apex Court has clearly stated ‘ the OM dt. 3.3.2008 is not relevant for the determination of the present controversy’
    Thus there is no iota of doubt that the decision of N R Parmar cannot be taken as yardstick across the cadres.

  2. anonymous says:

    yes,the judgement is absolutely correct.If the promoted officials r so much particular about the junior entrants being s enior to them why dont they question the same for direct IRSs ?…in that case who dare to say that they r junior in age and experience so he/she will not be senior to me in the seniority list? Another thing should be kept in the mind that seniority list is not directly proportional to promotion;one gets promotion after fulfilling the eligible condition only …it does not matter he is junior in age or not if he gets the promotion after fulfilling all the conditions…the officials should not maintain double standard in single matter.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The judgement is absolutely justified. People who are harping about their being senior are forgetting that there are two modes of entry- promotion and direct recruitment. Can someone really say that a person who joined as ITI should be considered inferior to another person who took fifteen years to become one ?

  4. pramod kumar says:

    judgement lack merit:

    Anonymous User at 2:47 p.m. on 22 June 13
    1. judgement itself says that it will apply to only those years vacancies, in which case creation of vacancies, requisition of the post by cbdt to ssc and notification of examination took place in the same year. see 2nd last para of judgement. so it is not applicable to all cases.

    2. it may not apply to recruits coming after resigning from service in other central govt. departments and continued his previous service and took pay protection also, otherwise the person will overlap the roster of two different department at two different post or of the same department at different posts in the same period of time, and will be taking benefit of service in both department at the same time/period, which is impossible. Pramod kumar

    3. this judgement has no previous references but marely operation of DOPT’s circulars. 3 judge judgement of 2009 in J & K Govt case is a perfect precedent on the issue but the new bench did not discuss it.

  5. Davinder Kumar says:

    I am Inspector in NWR. I was promoted as Inspector in December, 2006. The Inspectors who joined in 2008-09 will become senior to me if the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is implemented. Is it justified that one who is to admitted (recruited) will be senior the person already work for the last two three years?

    Is there any review petition pending with Hon’ble Apex Court for re-considering the decision given iin the case case of N.R. Parmar ???

  6. Davinder Kumar says:

    One who is reading in school in Ist class, will be promoted to 2nd class or the child who has to just in the world, will be promoted to 2nd class without joining the school in lkg, ukg and first class ?????


    As no stay due to review petition, which has not admitted. On similar ground another petition has dismissed. The Hon’ble supreme court considered all the possibilities like late reporting, not reporting, under reporting,wrong reporting of vacancies etc. In gujrat where no vacancy register maintained, how u can say that which vacancy pertains to which recruitment year and in such a situation, the principle laid down by the hon’ble supreme court is only way to determine the seniority.

  8. NARESH R PARMAR says:

    I am the direct party before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Since the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is on erroneous presentation leading to take a different view on the facts appraised by the judges. In fact, no vacancies were reported by the Board to the Staff Selection Commission in Recruitment Year 1993-94 but all the vacancies for that year were diverted to promotee quota from the Direct recruit Quota. Pending review petitions, the CCIT(CCA) has to be requested to wait the outcome of Review Petitions filed. My mobile No.is 09408792180 and I am having recent evidences to establish that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was misguided on the given facts of Delhi region.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

+ two = 4

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>