Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (2.46 seconds)
Documents citing G.Sadanandan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 11 February, 1966

Dodda Venkata Narsaiah And Ors. vs The Chairman And Managing Director, The ... on 25 January, 1995

11. The Kerala High Court further in the case of KM. Sugatha Prasad and Anr. v. State of Kerala (2 supra) after referring to the decision in Sadanandan v. The State of Kerala (1 supra) affirmed the view taken in the case of Sadanandan v. The State of Kerala (1 supra). Of course, in this case para 5 of the Judgment indicates that the adverse reports received regarding the character and antecedents of the concerned teachers were disclosed in the termination order. However, in that case also the Court was not called upon to decide the question whether disclosure of adverse reports in the termination order itself tantamounts to casting a stigma on the employee and whether such an order would come in the way of the employee seeking employment either under the State or elsewhere and whether the right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 16(1) of the Constitution was impaired or affected. Therefore this decision of the Kerala High Court is and cannot be an authority on the issue which arises for consideration in the present cases.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manager vs E.A.Paulose on 18 March, 2010

21. As noticed earlier, it is now settled law that the State can precribe the qualifications, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as Teacher or Principal of a minority educational institution. The validity of rule 45 of Chapter XIV A of the KER has been upheld by this Court in a series of decisions including the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sadanandan v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 516).Therefore, even in regard to its applicability to minority institutions, rule 45 is valid and operates with full force. Then the only question is whether the right of the minority institution to appoint a Headmaster of its choice is in any W.A.No.2277/2008 29 way curtailed or defeated by rule 45 . It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court that Educational Agency/Manager of a minority institution is entitled to appoint a teacher of their choice who possesses the requisite qualifications as the Headmaster. It has also been held that rule 44 of Chapter XIV A of the KER which stipulates that the appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority does not operate with full force in respect of minority institutions. The right of the Educational Agency/Manager of a minority educational institution to choose the junior or even to bring in an outsider as the Headmaster is also now well settled. The only trammel on that right of the minorities is that exercising that right they cannot appoint an unqualified person as the Headmaster. Necessarily therefore, if graduate teachers who possess the qualifications prescribed in rule 45 are available in the school, the Educational Agency/Manager of a minority educational institution will have the right to appoint only one among them ignoring the rule of seniority as the Headmaster. It is only if graduate teachers are not available, that the management of a minority educational institution can appoint anyone among the under-graduate teachers who possesses the prescribed qualifications as the Headmaster.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sabu @ San vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2021

By relying upon the said hostility, a contention was raised by the accused, before the Sessions Court to the effect that, the recovery of MO1 is not reliable. However, the Sessions Court found, the evidence of the investigating officer PW13, to be trustworthy. By relying upon the said evidence, the contention of the accused on this issue was rejected. While discarding the said contention, the Sessions court relied upon the judgments reported in 1992 (1) KLT SN 22 (Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala) and 1990 (2) KLT 564 ( Mathew Vs State of Kerala). We cannot find any infirmity in the said finding of the Sessions Court, as the same was arrived at based on reliable evidence of PW13, and also on a confession statement made by the 1st accused. It is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and is a valuable piece of evidence, specifically pointing to the guilt of the Crl.Appeal No.546 of 2017 17 accused. This is particularly so, as PW2, who is the sole eyewitness to the incident, had identified the said weapon and PW12 Doctor opined that, the injuries which caused the death of the deceased could be inflicted with the same. The hostility of witnesses to recovery based on confession statements is a perennial problem; the acceptability of which has to be evaluated on an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, as discernible from the evidence led in a particular case.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K V Chandran - Full Document

Mune Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2021

"29. The Constitution Bench of this Court in G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1925: 1966 Cri LJ 1533] held that if all the safeguards provided under the statute are not observed, an order having serious consequences is passed without proper application of mind, having a casual approach to the matter, the same can be characterised as having been passed mala fide, and thus, is liable to be quashed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Jagdish Mannalalji Sancheriya vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Ministry Of Rural ... on 24 June, 2022

29. The Constitution Bench of this Court in G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala, held that if all the safeguards provided under the Statute are not observed, an order having serious consequences is passed without proper application of mind, having a casual approach to the matter, the same can be characterised as having been passed mala fide, and thus, is liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Ranjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 May, 2023

AIR 1964 SC 1545] which opined that the defect in verification of an affidavit cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petitioner's petition summarily and such an affidavit can be permitted to be filed later. This Constitution Bench judgment was also referred to in G.M. Siddeshwar case [G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 715] to come to a conclusion that non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act was not fatal to the maintainability of an election petition and the defect could be remedied i.e. even in the absence of compliance, the petition would still be called an election petition. We cannot say that the High Court fell into an error while considering the election petition as a whole to come to the conclusion that the allegations of the appellant were not confined only to Section 33-A of the RP Act, but were larger in ambit as undue influence and improper acceptance of nomination of Respondent 1 were also pleaded as violation of the mandate under Sections 123 and 100 of the RP Act."
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - R Maithani - Full Document

Anantkumar Dwarkadas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 19 July, 2023

29. The Constitution Bench of this Court in G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala held that if all the safeguards provided under the statute are not observed, an order having serious consequences is passed without proper application of mind, having a casual approach to the matter, the same can be characterised as having been passed mala fide, and thus, is liable to be quashed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - N Kariel - Full Document

R. Sivakumar, Ias vs Union Public Service Commission And ... on 13 November, 2000

The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1925, wherein the Apex Court had held that where specific allegations in the petition are made against an authority, denial of such allegation by an authority other than the one against whom allegations are made and that too in a vague manner, is a ground sufficient to arrive at the conclusion of mala fides.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 18 August, 2005

83. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala and Anr., , held that if all the safeguards provided under the Rules are not observed, an order having serious consequences is passed without proper application of mind, having a casual approach to the matter, the same can be characterised as having been passed mala fide, and thus, becomes liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 164 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next