Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 667 (1.59 seconds)
Documents citing P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989

C/M Kaushambi Uchchattar Madhyamik ... vs District Inspector Of Shcools on 13 July, 2012

On a closure scrutiny, there does not seem to be any conflict in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ramji Dwivedi Vs. State of U. P. and others (supra), A. A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and another (supra) affirmed in P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra) as the two cases are based on different set of facts.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohanan vs Director Of Homeopathy on 26 July, 2006

Of course, this is an extreme view, which would even go to the effect that on amendment of the qualifications, the Government is even empowered to withdraw the selection process already started prior to the amendment. But, in very many other decisions, some of which we have quoted above, such an extreme view was not taken, although, in this decision, the Supreme Court has distinguished the ratio of the decision in Mahendran 's case (supra). All those decisions upheld the right of the applicants who have applied pursuant to such notification to be considered for selection in accordance with such notification. Still, we are of opinion that this decision would go a long way to support the view that in respect of vacancies which arose subsequent to the amendment, those vacancies can be filled up only on the basis of the amended qualifications. While at it, we will also refer to two Division Bench decisions of this Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 41 - S Jagan - Full Document

Sajeev K.C vs Stateof Kerala on 25 February, 2016

That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P.Mahendran v. State of Karnataka and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A.Baig)."
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - A Dominic - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Neelu [Along With Lpa No. 2449/2005] on 20 March, 2007

11. The learned Counsel for the respondents have reiterated the judgment titled P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka (supra) which has been referred to by the learned Single Judge. I have also gone through the judgments mentioned in para 8 of the impugned judgment. All the said cases deal with the prospective application of the amendments of recruitment rules if made during the process of selection. The facts and circumstances of the said cases were entirely different.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of M.P. on 11 March, 2025

In the present matter, since the petitioner had made the application on 7.8.2008 and as per the parameters prescribed under Rules, he has been found to be eligible for extending such benefit of Samman Nidhi and there is no iota of doubt that such entitlement would be from 01.04.2008 inasmuch as the date of the amendment is prospective in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Mahendran & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and A.A. Calton vs. the Director of Education (supra), and that amendment will be applicable only to those persons who had applied for claim of such Samman Nidhi after 4.1.2012 .
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Atul Kumar Lumba vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2025

In the present matter, since the petitioner had made the application on 7.8.2008 and as per the parameters prescribed under Rules, he has been found to be eligible for extending such benefit of Samman Nidhi and there is no iota of doubt that such entitlement would be from 01.04.2008 inasmuch as the date of the amendment is prospective in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of P. Mahendran & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (supra) and A.A. Calton vs. the Director of Education (supra), and that amendment will be applicable only to those persons who had applied for claim of such Samman Nidhi after 4.1.2012 .
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Archana Sandip Jadhav And Ors vs The Government Of Maharashtra , Through ... on 14 June, 2024

42. Some of the Petitioners have relied upon judgments of Regional Transport Officer Chittoor Vs. Associated Trasport Madras, P Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka, Union of India Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal (supra) in support of this proposition. We respectfully agree with the proposition of law, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments. There Husen 53 901 WP-9218-2022(J) group.doc can not be retrospective application of a rule unless made retrospective expressly or by necessary implication. There is nothing in the impugned GR to indicate that it proposes retrospective application. However, as can be seen from the said judgments themselves, that this principle does not apply to a procedure, because there is no 'right' to a particular procedure. In the present case, we have already held that the teachers like the Petitioners (who were merely posted in particular villages - ZP schools which are included in the municipal limits on the date of notification) do not have a vested right of being absorbed/transferred in municipal corporation. Their right is 'the right to be considered', which is not affected. They will be considered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the impugned GR of July 2019.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M M Sathaye - Full Document

Anand Laxman Sonkamble And Ors vs The Government Of Maharashtra , The ... on 14 June, 2024

42. Some of the Petitioners have relied upon judgments of Regional Transport Officer Chittoor Vs. Associated Trasport Madras, P Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka, Union of India Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal (supra) in support of this proposition. We respectfully agree with the proposition of law, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments. There Husen 53 901 WP-9218-2022(J) group.doc can not be retrospective application of a rule unless made retrospective expressly or by necessary implication. There is nothing in the impugned GR to indicate that it proposes retrospective application. However, as can be seen from the said judgments themselves, that this principle does not apply to a procedure, because there is no 'right' to a particular procedure. In the present case, we have already held that the teachers like the Petitioners (who were merely posted in particular villages - ZP schools which are included in the municipal limits on the date of notification) do not have a vested right of being absorbed/transferred in municipal corporation. Their right is 'the right to be considered', which is not affected. They will be considered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the impugned GR of July 2019.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - M M Sathaye - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next