Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Centre For Public Interest Ligation vs Uoi & Ors. on 27 July, 2009

Smt. Chitra Mukundan vs Union Of India on 8 January, 2014

While making these observations, we are aware of the limitation of the Courts/Tribunals in interfering with the policy matters as laid down by the Apex Court in A. Styanarayana Vs. S. Purshottam JT 2008 (5) SC 508, V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others 2008 (13) SCC 730, Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Another Vs. Union of India & Another 2011 (4) SCC 1 etc. In all those cases, the Apex Court held that the question that can be looked into by the Courts is whether the policy is so unreasonable, or arbitrary or absurd. However, we see in many cases, transfers of the employees of KVS, including the case of the Applicant in this OA, administrative exigency or public interest is not always the guiding factors. In some cases, the requests for retention at the very same station or to a transfer to particular place are acceded to but in other cases, they are rejected. Therefore, it is necessary that the Respondents should have a re-look into its transfer/posting policy of its employees including the teaching staff.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sunil Alag vs Union Of India And Anr. on 28 May, 2015

28. There can be no debate about the executive government‟s decision on the suitability - on the merits of an officer, while deciding whether to position him or her in a particular post. The wisdom of the executive cannot be gone into (the hands off "merits review" advocated in the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (supra). However, what is open to review is the process of decision-making. Here, procedural regularity (adherence to prescribed guidelines and criteria, in regard to selection to ensure fairness, objectivity and equality); application of administrative law principles (taking into account relevant factors, eschewing irrelevant factors, applying the mind, objectively to the facts and disclosing a discernable and relevant rationale for the decision), adherence to prescribed statutory provisions (wherever existing), bona fide use of power and absence of any bias are as applicable in regard to appointments made by the Union Cabinet, as any other.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Tatpal Singh Jaggi And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 August, 2015

46. In this case, the Selection Committee was concededly performing a public function for the MYAS in deciding which organization or individual merited the Puraskar. At the outset, while scrutinizing its selection- this Court notices that though the award amount was not substantial, the importance of the task assigned to the Committee could not be undermined. Given the fact that sports funding is substantial by the Central Government, due importance to proper scrutiny of claims by various applicants was essential. This court is conscious of its limited role; it cannot substitute the opinion of the empowered body, i.e. the Selection Committee. Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr v. Union of India & Anr, (2011) 4 SCC 1 is authority for the proposition that the court, in judicial review cannot undertake a „merits review‟ of the decision. Yet, it can examine if the recommending or expert body took relevant factors into consideration and did not ignore or overlook anything material, or if its decision was based on any irrelevant consideration, or if there was non-application of mind. Thus, it was held that the High Power Committee (which in that case was tasked with recommending a candidate for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner) was duty bound to consider all relevant facts:
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Essar Teleholdings Ltd vs Cbi on 29 September, 2015

5. On 16.12.2010, this Court passed an order reported in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 560, directing the CBI to investigate the said FIR. On 10.2.2011, while monitoring the CBI investigation, this Court passed an order directing that no other Court shall pass any order which may in any manner impede the investigation being carried out by the CBI and Directorate of Enforcement. On 2.4.2011, and 25.4.2011, CBI filed a chargesheet and a first supplementary chargesheet against 12 accused persons for offences committed both under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is common ground that none of the petitioners before us were named or mentioned in these two chargesheets.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Mohd.Faheem Sk.Ibrahim Quraishi vs The Caste Cert.Scrut.C., Nagpur on 8 July, 2022

3. The writ petition having been admitted on 23/02/1999, the same has been pending since then. With regard to the challenge to S.R.O. 385, the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Centre For Public Interest Litigation And Anr. vs. Union of India (2011) 15 SCC 533 submitted that the question whether non-inclusion of Muslims in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 25 of Constitution of India has been referred to a larger Bench and that reference is still pending. Various orders passed by this Court in the writ petition indicate that the hearing of the writ petition has been adjourned from time to time considering pendency of the said larger issue.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document
1