Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 446 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973

S. Purushotham And 4 Ors. vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Its Chief ... on 21 August, 2006

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service to describe the fixation of lower quota for POs as discriminatory. It is well established in law that the right to be considered for promotion on fair and equal basis without discrimination may be claimed as a legal and a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but chances of promotion as such cannot be claimed as of right (see Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra , AIR para 12, at p. 267).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Reserved On 24.12.2024 vs Ashok Kumar & Others on 7 January, 2025

16. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a considerable delay; however, this is not an absolute rule. It was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 1 SCC 317: 1974 SCC (L&S) 137: 1973 SCC OnLine SC 333 that the principle of delay is one of the discretion and does not prevent the High Court from exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an appropriate case. It was observed at page 325:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Dr. Kailash Narayan Mewafarosh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Department ... on 18 April, 2018

graduate Supervisors from the erstwhile Hyderabad State for promotion, was reduced : originally it was fifty percent, then it became thirty-three and one third per cent, then one in eighteen and ultimately one in twenty-four. The right to be considered for promotion was not 6 WP.4852.2015 affected but the chances of promotion were severely reduced. This did not constitute variation in the condition of service applicable immediately prior to November 1, 1956 and the proviso to Section 115, sub-section (7) was not attracted. This view is completely supported by the decision, of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra [(1974) 1 SCC 317]."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Salonah Tea Company Ltd vs Superintendent Of Taxes Nowgong & Ors. ... on 18 December, 1987

4. On the other hand, it is contended for the appellants that a writ petition seeking refund of taxes collected without the authority of law cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation or delay unless such delay can be said to amount to laches or has caused some irreparable prejudice to the opposite party or some other like forceful reason exists. Counsel refers in this context to Venkateswaran v. Ramchand, [1962] 1 SCR 75; Chandra Bhushan v. Deputy Director, [1967] 2 SCR 286; Tilokchand Motichand v. Munshi, [1969] 2 SCR 824; Ramachandra S. Deodhar v. State, [1974] 2 SCR 216; Joginder Nath v. Union, [ 1975] 2 SCR 558; Shiv shankar Dal Mills v. State, [ 1980] 1 SCR 1170 and State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, AIR 1987 SC 251 and contends that these decisions have qualified the observations of Das Gupta, J. in Bhailal Bhai's case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 122 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Shiv Charan vs High Court Of Delhi And Anr. [Alongwith ... on 30 May, 2008

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners claimed that the alleged delay and latches would not come in the way of the grant of relief to the petitioners and referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. . It was observed in the said judgment that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of delay or latches is that the rights, which have accrued to others, by reason of delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there was reasonable explanation for the delay. This is so since each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion, effected a long time ago, would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years. However, where no rights had accrued in favour of others by reason of the delay in filing the petition, and the promotions being provisional, no rights could have been conferred on those promoted, the same were liable to be set at naught in terms of the correct legal position as may be finally determined. It was thus submitted that in the present case there were no rights accrued to the petitioners which would be disturbed.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Mrs Susmita Mana vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 5 November, 2024

8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of 11 O.A.No. 260/00214 of 2022 other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Venkatasamy vs The Director on 15 December, 2016

This conclusion can be fortified from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) (1974) 1 SCC 317 which was relied on by the learned single Judge of this Court in his order dated 17.09.2014 wherein it was held that there was more than ten or twelve years in filing the petition since the accrual of the casue of complaint, and such delay was sufficient to disentitle the petitioners to any relief under Article 32 of The Constitution of India. In the present case also, the petitioners have approached this Court much after their retirement and some of the petitioners have even died. The petitioners have not any justifiable reason as to why they did not approach this Court at the earliest point of time to seek the relief which are sought for in these batch of writ petition when cause of action for them to file such writ petitions was very much subsisting at the relevant point of time. Therefore, I find force in the argument of the learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents that the petitioners are fench-sitters/watchers and they were waiting for the litigation engineered at the instance of similarly placed persons to conclude before they file the present batch of writ petitions.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

S.Krishnasamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 September, 2010

16.Apart from these contentions, the petitioners' counsel had also contended that the question of delay and latches will not arise in these cases, since it involves issue relating to pay and allowances, there is a continuing cause of action. Further the relief if granted will not affect the rights of the others. They placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317. Reliance was placed upon the following passage found in para 10 and it reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next