Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (2.76 seconds)
Documents citing Jagdish Pandey vs The Chancellor University Of Bihar & Anr on 17 August, 1967

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

In Jagdish Pandey v. The Chancellor, University of Bihar & Anr. [1968] 1 SCR 231, Section 4 of the Bihar State Uni- versities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) (Amendment) Act 13 of 1962 was called in question as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the said section did not make any provision for giving the teacher a hearing before passing the order thereunder. By that section, every appointment, dismissal etc. of any teacher of a college affiliated to the University (but not belonging to 284 the State) made on or after 27th November, 1961 and before 1st March, 1962 was to be subject to such order as the Chancellor of the University may on the recommendation of the University Service Commission established under Section 48 of the said Act pass with respect thereto. The Court held that the said section was not invalid on the ground of unchannelised power given to the Chancellor because it never authorised the Chancellor to scrutinise the relevant ap- pointments for satisfying himself that they were in accord- ance with University Act and its Statutes etc. The Court further held that although the said section did not make a provision for giving the teacher a hearing before passing order thereunder, such hearing must be read in the said section which the Commission had to give according to the principles of natural justice before making its recommenda- tions to the Chancellor.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Valiben Jethabhai Bhanji vs Patan Municipality on 14 July, 2006

In the case of Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University (supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court read down the provisions so as to hold them constitutionally valid. The factual background and the rules in question in the said decision though were different from the present case, I do not see any reason why in the present case, such a course should not be adopted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

243. Learned senior counsel in his alternate submission has also disputed that the State Government has not produced any material on record to demonstrate that any circumstances existed for grant of such extensions justifying the same. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Pandey (supra). It is urged that the first proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act being vague, unintelligible, and confers wide, unfettered power on an authority, it is inherently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

243. Learned senior counsel in his alternate submission has also disputed that the State Government has not produced any material on record to demonstrate that any circumstances existed for grant of such extensions justifying the same. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Pandey (supra). It is urged that the first proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act being vague, unintelligible, and confers wide, unfettered power on an authority, it is inherently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Jan Mohd. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 12 May, 1992

30. As regards the reading down of the provisions of Section 63(4) of the Act to include the principles of natural justice, our attention has been drawn to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University (AIR 1968 SC 353). The facts of that case are contained in para 6 of the Judgment, wherein it has been noted that the order dated August 18, 1962 had worked itself out and, therefore, it could not have been reviewed or revised by the Chancellor under Section 4 by issuing an order dated November 30, 1962, whereby promotion was granted to a particular person by the Chancellor as Principal and that order was executed and it was sought to be set aside by a later order. In those facts, it was held that although, the Chancellor has powers to revise that order but that should be done after affording an opportunity of being heard to the affected person. It was in this context that the provision as such was read down and in reading it down it was held that it includes the principle of audi alterm partem. Here, that is not the case. It is not acase of divesting rights, which revested. It is a case of temporary removal of a person pending proposed enquiry, which may be initiated against him for his removal. That enquiry in a regular manner has to be proceeded with only after obtaining his explanation and after considering his explanation, if it is found that the charges are to be referred to the Judicial Officer then the regular enquiry starts. Prior to that, if any complaint is made as regards his working, which may be covered by Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 63(1) of the Act then on that complaint alone no suspension can take place. That complaint has to be enquired into by the State Govt. or by an officer deputed by it and after that enquiry is held and a preliminary report is submitted and after that report is considered, the delinquent can be suspended. Thus, it is clear that the suspension can only take place after due application of mind on such a report where the authorities comes to the conclusion that the matter requires further probe and if that is there then the explanation has to be obtained from the delinquent concerned and after setting down the statement of allegation that enquiry is referred to a Judicial Officer of the rank of District & Sessions Judge. Thus, the final enquiry is not held by the State Govt. It has to be held by a Judicial Officer and, therefore, the contention of Mr. Mridul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Murlidhar that once a decision to suspend a particular person is taken, the State Govt. will always try to maintain its order has no legs to stand.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 54 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

243. Learned senior counsel in his alternate submission has also disputed that the State Government has not produced any material on record to demonstrate that any circumstances existed for grant of such extensions justifying the same. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Pandey (supra). It is urged that the first proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act being vague, unintelligible, and confers wide, unfettered power on an authority, it is inherently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

243. Learned senior counsel in his alternate submission has also disputed that the State Government has not produced any material on record to demonstrate that any circumstances existed for grant of such extensions justifying the same. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Pandey (supra). It is urged that the first proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act being vague, unintelligible, and confers wide, unfettered power on an authority, it is inherently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

243. Learned senior counsel in his alternate submission has also disputed that the State Government has not produced any material on record to demonstrate that any circumstances existed for grant of such extensions justifying the same. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Pandey (supra). It is urged that the first proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act being vague, unintelligible, and confers wide, unfettered power on an authority, it is inherently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 9 February, 2023

243. Learned senior counsel in his alternate submission has also disputed that the State Government has not produced any material on record to demonstrate that any circumstances existed for grant of such extensions justifying the same. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Pandey (supra). It is urged that the first proviso to section 25 of the Fair Compensation Act being vague, unintelligible, and confers wide, unfettered power on an authority, it is inherently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Dr. (Mrs.) Rukmani Vaish And 5 Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And 10 Ors. on 31 July, 1981

77. Mr. Mathur also invited my attention to the decision in Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor 1968 SLR 252 reporteddecisionin Gian Chand and Ors. v. The Director, Hydel Designs, Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors. 1976 (1) SLR 570 In the first case of Jagdish Pandey, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with validity of Section 4. Here again, the question examined by the Hon'ble Judges was, whether the date fixed was arbitrary. The Hon'ble Court held that there is no doubt that if the dates are arbitrary, Section 4 would be violative of Article 14, for, then there would be no justification for singling out a class of teachers, who were appointed and dismissed between these dates However, on the merits of the case, the learned Judges found that from the statement of objects for enactment of Section 4, there is proper justification for fixing of the dates in that particular case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next