Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 90 (2.17 seconds)
Documents citing Govt. Of A.P. & Anr vs G. Jaya Prasad Rao & Ors on 21 March, 2007

The Honourable Thiru Justice vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 2 December, 2020

64. Fr.Xavier Arul Raj, learned Senior Counsel appeared in the above writ petition along with other three writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12719 of 2020, 13345 of 2020 & 14302 of 2020. According to the learned Senior Counsel representing the category of Sub-Inspector of Police, that similar amendment ought to be introduced in Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service as well, since these Police Personnel governed by the said Rules are also aggrieved by the ruling of the learned Division Bench against their interests. The learned Senior counsel has relied on a decision reported in 2007 (11) SCC 528 in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & another Vs. G.Jaya Prasad Rao & others dated 21.03.2007. In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court has 90/109 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.24461 of 2020 upheld the classification based on outstanding work and further held that mere fact that the provision may be misused in the individual case does not render the classification invalid. The learned Senior counsel therefore submitted that the classification needs to be dismembered on a case to case basis and appreciated but cannot hold the accelerated promotion in its entirety, as illegal.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2021

Provided also that where the Chairperson or 24 Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 528; People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580; Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 25 Mehmood Alam Tariq & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 241 30 Member takes a house on rent, he may be reimbursed a house rent subject to such limits and conditions as may be provided by rules.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 179 - Cited by 8 - L N Rao - Full Document

Farhan vs State & Anr on 11 May, 2022

41. Concerns about the possibility of misuse of Section 375, were the impugned Exception to be struck down, submits Ms. Nundy, besides being unfounded, are irrelevant to the issue of its constitutionality. She has referred to statistics to attempt to submit that a very small proportion of marital rape cases are reported. That apart, she relies on Government of A.P. v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao28and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India29 to contend that the possibility of misuse cannot be a ground for regarding a provision to be constitutionally fragile.
Delhi High Court Cites 355 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

R.Thirunavukkarasu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2013

103. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2007) 11 SCC 528 (Government of A.P. v. G.Jaya Prasad Rao) and other decisions, the learned single Judge held that the present case on hand, choice was not sought from the police personnel for joining the S.T.F. and that it was not indicated to the police personnel that such benefit of accelerated promotion would be conferred in future if they get to join S.T.F. We fully endorse the views of the learned single Judge.
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

R.Thirunavukkarasu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 October, 2009

23. Yet another decision that was relied on behalf of the petitioners is reported in (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 528, Govt. Of A.P Vs. G.Jaya Prasad Rao. That is the case where certain police personnel approached the Tribunal with a prayer to declare insertion of Note 2 to Rule 3 and Proviso to Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil Police) Service Rules, 1998 issued in G.O.Ms.No.267, Home (Police-E) Department dated 26.11.2001 by amendment of Rule as arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. By the said amendment a scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work in the field of anti-extremist operation. By virtue of the said amendment, some of the officers have got accelerated promotion on account of their performances in extremist area. The above Rule was struck down by the Tribunal. Aggrieved against the order, a batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal. The High Court held that the amendment did not satisfy the test of reasonable classification and it further observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made a basis for creating a separate class within the class. The matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the judgement of the High Court, Andhra Pradesh holding that it cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the said decision that the amendment cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary. Further, it has been held that those who have performed in extreme situation deserves better treatment and the same has to be done within four corners of the Rules. Para 25 of the said judgement is usefully extracted here under:-
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Nilay S/O Suresh Bhoge vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Principal ... on 2 August, 2024

38. Another important point that has been raised on behalf of the respondents is that only the respondent no.4 has been added as party respondent, though the directions by the learned Tribunal were to include all the affected candidates. In his subsequent written counter to the arguments of the respondents, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has given the dates as to how the matter proceeded. It is submitted that the respondent no.4 appeared before the MAT for the first time on 14-12-2023, but he had not raised objection, though the matter was listed several times. Then the petitioners filed the Civil Application No.61/2024 seeking modification, but to that also the respondent no.4 sought time to reply. It is then stated that the petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.8417/2023 and this Court directed the learned Tribunal to decide the petitioners prayer for interim relief within a period of one week by order 36 wp 2644.24 judg.odt dated 04-03-2024. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 filed his reply to Original Application and the Civil Application and at no point of time the respondent no.4 had requested that the petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Reiterating his reliance on Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) on the point of non inclusion of other allegedly affected persons as party respondents, he has submitted that the petition cannot be dismissed on that count. The first and the foremost point is that when the petitioners had filed Civil Application No.61/2024 for seeking modification of the order passed by the Tribunal on 08-11-2023, then without insisting or pressing that application the petitioners themselves ought not to have proceeded with the matter. That application was kept pending and the submissions were advanced on the merits. Now the petitioners cannot say that the respondent no.4 had not insisted the point before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had already passed the order on 08-11-2023, directing the petitioners to include all the affected persons. When it comes to seniority of an employee then without hearing him that seniority cannot be changed to the detriment of his interest.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next