Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PILLA SITARAM PATRUDU AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
25 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 870 · 1996 INSC 440
Also cited as
  • (1996) 8 SCC 637 (19 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 250 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned.

p. 870, margin E

The 5th respondent, K.R. Ramanandan, was selected by direct recruitment in the year 1977 for selection as Assistant Executive Engineer. All the direct recruits except the respondent were appointed in the year 1978. It was admitted that when he had filed O.P. No. 7226/85 in the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, by order dated 31.1.1990 it was held that his appointment was delayed due to !aches on the part of the Railway Administration. After his appointment in the year 1981, within two years he passed his test. When his case was not considered for promotion as Executive Engineer, he filed the O.A. The Tribunal without deciding the inter se seniority in the cadre of Asst!. Executive Engineers had directed the Railway Administration to consider his case for promotion as Executive Engineer for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 and if found fit for promotion in any of the posts, to give him promotion for that year and to flX seniority among Executive Engineers accordingly. Pursuant thereto, the respondent was considered and promoted as Executive Engineer. After the above order came to be made, the Railway Administration did not carry the matter in appeal to this Court. Some of the persons seemingly aggrieved against the direction admittedly filed a review petition which was also dismissed arid that order became final.The petitioners thereafter challenged the self same order by filing separate O.A. and in· the impugned order of the Tribunal dated October 19, 1995 the Tribunal has confirmed its earlier order. Thus this Special Leave Petition.

pp. 870–871, margin E

It is contended ,by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the inter-se seniority as Asst!. 'Engineers was left open in the order, the directions given by the Tribunal to consider the case as Executive Engineer and determine his seniority on the basis of the promotion, is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention. Once he is found lo be eligible accordi"ng to the rules, then his. seniority is required to be determined as per the pro~edui-e prescribed'i~ the "rules in vogue. It is further contended that the fifth respondent was not.qualified since he had not completed 8 years. qf required service. Th~. Tribun.al h~s recorded a finding that two years period is relaxable in the case of the reserved candidates: The inter se seniority as Asst!. Executive Engineer is required to be determined; he joined service in '1981 and, therefore, he did not have the requisite service. ·We find no· force in· the contention. Since he was selected by direct recruitment, he is entitled to be. appointed to rule. His appointment was delayed for no fault of him and he came to be appointed in 1981, he is, therefore, _entitled to the .ranking given in the select list and appointment · made accordingly. 'Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order.

p. 871, margin B

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed . R.P. . Petition dismissed.

p. 871, margin F

. ..

p. 871, margin F