Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Vikram University seniority dispute between promoted and directly recruited teachers

    Încărcat de

    Kartikeya Dar
    8 vizualizări1 pagină
    A teacher who was promoted to Readership based on merit claimed seniority over a directly recruited teacher based on continuous service. However, the promotion scheme was based on merit, not seniority. The appellant was promoted in 1985 while the petitioner was directly recruited in 1986 and confirmed after two years. The appellant was shown as senior on seniority lists but the petitioner approached the court to have the appellant removed claiming the promotion was based on merit not seniority.

    Descriere originală:

    Promotion

    Titlu original

    Dr Rashmi Srivastava

    Drepturi de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formate disponibile

    DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    A teacher who was promoted to Readership based on merit claimed seniority over a directly recruited teacher based on continuous service. However, the promotion scheme was based on merit, not seniority. The appellant was promoted in 1985 while the petitioner was directly recruited in 1986 and confirmed after two years. The appellant was shown as senior on seniority lists but the petitioner approached the court to have the appellant removed claiming the promotion was based on merit not seniority.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    8 vizualizări1 pagină

    Vikram University seniority dispute between promoted and directly recruited teachers

    Încărcat de

    Kartikeya Dar
    A teacher who was promoted to Readership based on merit claimed seniority over a directly recruited teacher based on continuous service. However, the promotion scheme was based on merit, not seniority. The appellant was promoted in 1985 while the petitioner was directly recruited in 1986 and confirmed after two years. The appellant was shown as senior on seniority lists but the petitioner approached the court to have the appellant removed claiming the promotion was based on merit not seniority.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    DR. RASHMI SRIVASTAVA V. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY AND ORS., (1995) 3 SCC 653.

    Question: Whether teachers whove been given a promotion on merit (based on a scheme promulgated by the UGC) can claim seniority over directly recruited readers or professors on the ground of continuous officiation in service as readers or professors. The scheme was to promote people based on merit and not seniority. Appellant was promoted to Readership in 1985, and petitioner no. 4 in 1986 as a direct recruit, and was confirmed after two years probation. The appellant was shown senior to R.4 on seniority lists. R.4 approached the court demanding the names of the appellants removed from the list

    S-ar putea să vă placă și