Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 666 (5.96 seconds)
Documents citing Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994

Jitender Kumar S/O Late Sri Rajendra ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary ... on 27 July, 2012

This Court as early as in the decision reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr., JT 1994 (2) SC 183 ; (1994) 2 SCC 718 held that the courts cannot direct appointments on compassionate grounds dehors the provisions of the scheme in force governed by rules/regulations/instructions. If in a given case, the department of the government concerned declines, as a matter of policy, not to deviate from the mandate of the provisions underlying the scheme and refuses to relax the stipulation in respect of ceiling fixed therein, the courts cannot compel the authorities to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular way and that too by relaxing the essential conditions, when no grievance of violation of substantial rights of parties could be held to have been proved, otherwise.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radhika Thirumalai A. vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited on 21 July, 1995

Sri Murthy placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (1990-I-LLJ-169) and Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1995-I-LLJ-798) and State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali (1995-II-LLJ-108) would submit that what is stated in para 9 of Sushma's case (supra) should be understood in the light of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and no mandamus could be issued to the respondent company to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in violation of the Rules governing such appointments. Referring to the averments made in the counter filed by the respondent company, Sri Murthy would submit that after the ban on recruitment was imposed, no appointments were made to Class IV services and there are 48 claimants as on to day who seek appointments in the services of the company on compassionate grounds and the company has made a list of those claimants strictly in accordance with the date of death of the concerned employees and in that list the name of the petitioner finds at serial No. 23. Even if any vacancy accrues or arises in future, the seniors to the petitioner are required to be considered for appointment and the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered overlooking the claims of the seniors. For all these reasons, the learned Counsel would submit that no case is made our for interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.S.R.T. Corporation vs Dineshbhai Manibhai Panchal on 2 December, 1994

In State of Haryana v. Naresh Kumar Bali, (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that, with regard to appointment on compassionate ground the law is set out in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & Anr. (supra) and the same principle would clearly apply in the said case. It has been observed that what the High Court failed to note was that the post of an Inspector was a promotional post. The issuing of a direction to appoint the respondent within three months when direct recruitment is not available, was unsupportable. It has been observed that the High Court would have merely directed consideration of the claim of the respondent in accordance with the rules. It cannot direct appointment. Such a direction does not fall within the scope of mandamus. Judicial review, it has been repeatedly emphasised, is directed against the decision-making process and not against the decision itself, and it is no part of Court's duty to exercise the power of the authorities itself.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Union Of India & Ors vs Deepk Kumar Rai on 24 January, 2017

The High Court also failed to appreciate a well-settled principle of law laid down by this Court in LIC of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718 that the Court cannot order appointment on compassionate ground, dehors the provisions of the statutory regulations and instructions and that hardship of the candidate does not entitle him to compassionate appointment dehors the statutory provisions.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next