Nani Sha

nana-on sha Archives - Super Beat Sports

---

The actual purchase price will be the default value of commercial invoice CI , and the shipping list in CI only includes the products you actually purchased. If there is any special need, please note in the CI Note column.

February 2007

Once the purchase is completed, it means the recognition of the policies. No refund and return after the payment. A day warranty for miners. The following conditions will make the warranty invalid: Disassembled machine, unauthorized changes, or replacement of components. Damage caused by lightning strike, voltage surge, faulty power supply, etc. Burnt circuit boards or chips. Damage by water, damp or corrosion. In the case of the above, we will provide paid maintenance service.

Shipping&Packaging

The freight fee of maintenance is paid by the buyer, and we are not responsible for the loss of income during the maintenance period. Noiseless Water Cooling Most effective closed-loop cooling system. Customizable solutions for large mining farms. Work at low speeds, have built-in anti-vibration pad. Improved aerodynamics of the blades. Durability of more than 50, hours of working. Ready to use mining farms Locks-latches for the assembly of mines.

Your Answer

A farm of 50 miners can be assembled into the mining farm on latches, by two people, in less than an hour. Safety locking systems for large mining farms Fastening with ropes from above. Higher quality and reliability of contact. Learned counsel very fairly agreed that had there been a It will, therefore, have to be found as to whether there was a quota of For this purpose it would be worthwhile to see the language of Rule 5 before its amendment.

There was a problem providing the content you requested

Rule 5 before it was amended was as under:. Save as provided in Rule 17, appointment to the service shall be made by the following methods, namely:. Provided that nothing in this rules shall preclude the Governor from holding a vacancy in abeyance or filling up on officiating basis in accordance with the provisions of these Rules. Learned counsel further suggests that even in respect of the promotees the words "such substantive vacancies" in Sub-Rule b would indicate only the substantive vacancies which have occurred from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of service and remained after the vacancies are filled up by direct appointees.

To substantiate this argument our attention is invited to the amended Rule 5.

We find that all that is added by the amendment is the proviso which is to the following effect:. Learned counsel Shri Nair, however, tries to suggest that the aforementioned addition of proviso is only by way of a clarification and, therefore, this Rule should be viewed with retrospective effect and it should be viewed as if quota was always there even earlier.

Considering the plain language of the unamended Rule there can be no dispute that earlier what was contemplated by Rule 5 was only "substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorized permanent strength of service".

The Rule does not contemplate that there shall be a separate quota for the two categories from out of the cadre strength. The condition of the two categories having When we see the plain language of the proviso that position becomes all the more clear. Atleast from the plain language of unamended Rule 5 we are unable to see any quota being there for the two categories much less in the ratio of On this backdrop when we see the chart of vacancy position, it is apparent that on 1.

Thus there were in all 43 posts which were occupied and 11 posts were vacant. For some reasons which are beyond our imagination, the posts of promotees were never filled and remained pending right from upto It seems that ultimately in as many as 12 posts were filled in by promotions and right upto 1. The posts of the promotees which had dwindled upto 9 then became 21 with effect from 3.

This was obvious because of the promotion. There can be no dispute that the government took unnecessarily long period to effect the promotions. Apparently, there is no reason for this with the government. However, the fact remains that till , the promotees were never promoted and direct appointees were already working in the cadre on the available posts right from Under such circumstances, if the seniority of the direct appointees was honoured in comparison to the promotees, we do not think there was any error committed by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.

This takes us to the question of retrospective effect of the Rule. It was tried to be impressed upon by the learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 5 a would operate retrospectively as its nature was clarificatory. It was tried to be further impressed that even the government has treated, right from the beginning that there was a quota and it was only to redress the injustice done to the promotees that the government passed the impugned Resolution dated 20th May, Firstly, we must clarify that there was no evidence put before us by the Government that it was all through treating, even before , that there was a Such an evidence was bound to be put before the High Court in the first instance which was not so put.

The exercise done on 20th May, appears to be not a suo motu exercise on the part of the government but on the basis of the representations made by the present appellants.

We can understand if the government had made this exercise of 20th May, on its own, that would have given credence to the arguments that the government had always been treating that there was a That document is not before us and we have no way to find out as to whether it was put before the High Court to support an argument that the government was always under the impression that there existed a quota. On the other hand the DPC viewed that there were some posts which were bound to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes candidates and they were bound to be treated as backlog vacancies to be filled up as per points roster and it is for this reason that the posts were to be filled up by the appellants.

So far so good, but we completely fail to understand that even when there were backlog vacancies how was the government justified in giving a retrospective effect from 2. There is no justification whatsoever of giving the retrospective effect. We, therefore, endorse the view expressed by the High Court that there was no necessity of giving the retrospective effect. Reverting back to the effect of the proviso, we do not find anywhere any such intention to apply the proviso with retrospective effect.

In order to make a provision applicable with retrospective effect, it has to be specifically expressed in the provision. We do not find such an expression in the said proviso. Nothing had stopped the government before amending the Rule to word it specifically, making it retrospective.

That was not done and we are not prepared to hold that the Rule is retrospective. Secondly, we cannot countenance the argument that the Rule has a clarificatory nature. The Rule, for the first time, creates a quota and thus crystallizes the rights of the direct appointees and the promotees which was not there earlier. It, therefore, cannot be viewed as a clarificatory amendment.

Nana On-Sha

Again whether the amendment is clarificatory or not would depend upon the language of the provision as also the other Rules. We have examined the Rules which did not suggest that there was any quota existing as such. On the other hand we see Rule 25 which is a Rule regarding seniority and more particularly Rule 25 c. It is apparent from the language of the Rule that the government thought otherwise.

Rule 25 c is as under:. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.

You are here

Therefore, one thing is certain that the appellants did not have right to claim a retrospective seniority particularly over and above the respondents who had been working in the post of ACF right from July, Dinesh Kumar Sharma [ 1 SCC ] has clearly held that the seniority is to be reckoned not from the day when the vacancy arose but from the date on which the appointment is made to the post. There this Court was interpreting Rules 17 and 21 of the U. Government Servants Seniority Rules,

• Rainbow Master
• Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics: Unimolecular Kinetics, Part 1. The Reaction Step: 39
• Golden Dreams
• Direct Action in the UK - chances, limitations and risks
• Your Class Reunion