Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing I.B. Rajendra Prasad vs The Director Of Tribal Welfare And Ors. on 22 February, 1996

Vice-Chancellor-Cum-Chairman, Sri ... vs T. Rajeswari And Ors. on 11 March, 2002

43. Be that as it may, when there was no fraud or misrepresentation committed by the 3rd respondent in obtaining the caste certificate and she was fairly placed all the material before the Tahsildar /MRO and the Tahsildar/MRO had issued the certificate on the basis of the caste certificate issued to her husband and on the basis of the decision of this Court in Ushakiran's case which was the state of law prevailing at that point of time and as the said certificate has been accepted by the University, the same having not been cancelled by any authority subsequently, and the judgment of the Apex Court in Valasamma's case being subsequent in point of time and in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad's case, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of appointment made in favour of the 3rd respondent particularly after a lapse of 13 years. Even on equity also, justice demands that the appointment of the 3rd respondent be not set at naught at this point of time.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

G.V. Narasimham vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 30 August, 1997

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted relying on a decision of this Court in the case of I.B.Rajendra Prasad v. Director of Tribal Welfare, (DB) that when a state of affairs existing for a number of years it should not be allowed to be suddenly upset, and hence, the legitimate expectation of the petitioner for being promoted as the senior most lecturer of that college, cannot be upset by allowing the other people to compete for the post long after the date on which the vacancy arose. But that decision itself states that in appropriate cases rights accrued under the earlier law can be unsettled if the justice of the situation so demanded. No doubt, in the present case, if the vacancy which arose in 1990 had been filled up then and there, the petitioner would not have to face any competition from the 4th respondent. Unfortunately, due to lapse of time and the post lying vacant, the subsequent events such as, closure of uneconomical oriental colleges and the need to absorb the staff of those colleges demanded the attention of the Government. In that situation, considering the equities of retaining the Principal of a closed college in that post as against regularising a lecturer who is officiating in the post of Principal, the Government has thought it fit to amend the rules so as to absorb the former without detriment to their existing status. As between the petitioner and the 4th respondent it cannot be gainsaid that the 4th respondent had acquired the status of the regular Principal while the petitioner was only officiating, and hence, it cannot be said that the preference given to the 4th respondent was arbitrary.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T N Rangarajan - Full Document
1