Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In support of his contention that giving different treatment to two group of identically situated person amongst to unreasonable classifications and hostile discrimination, Mr. Misra has placed reliance of the dictium of Hon'ble Apex Court in re:(i) Food Corporation of India and others vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly and others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 734 and (ii) Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682.

18. Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Food Corporation of India and others vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly and others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 734. The relevant paras-29 and 37 of the said judgment are being reproduced here-in-below:-

37. In a case of this nature, legal right of the respondents emanated from violation of the equality clause contained in Article 14. If they were otherwise similarly situated, there was absolutely no reason why having regard to the provisions contained in Article 39-A of the Constitution of India, the respondents should be treated differently. It is, therefore, not a case where persons differently situated are being treated differently as was submitted by Mr. Saran."

19. Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682. The relevant paras-44, 45, 47, 48 & 68 of the judgment are being reproduced here-in-below:-

103. In support of his contention that unless the particular Rule is not challenged the prayer of reading down cannot be made, Sri Chandra has cited following judgments:

(i) SanjayKumar vs. Narinder Verma reported in (2006) 6 SCC 467.
(ii) State of Rajasthan vs. Sanyam Lodha reported in (2011) 13SCC 262.
(iii) Subramanian Swamy vs. Election Commission of India reported in (2003) 14 SCC 318.

104. Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that under the amended Rule 2(x) an absolute discretion has been conferred upon the State Government to fix the percentage of marks required to clear the examinations which are referred to as the minimum marks prescribed. Rule 2 (x) reads as follows: