Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 109 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa & Ors vs Prasana Kumar Sahoo on 26 April, 2007

The Cochin College vs Sri.Ajith Kumar K on 18 May, 2010

In State of Orissa v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo ((2007) 15 SCC 129), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even a policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India would be subservient to the recruitment rules framed by the State either in terms of a legislative Act or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is further observed that a purported policy decision issued by way of an executive instruction cannot override the statute or statutory rules far less the constitutional provisions. As such, what is required to be seen is whether Exts.P11 and WA1645 & 1866/10 70 P14 are in violation of any specific statutory stipulations.
Kerala High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 3 - A Dominic - Full Document

Parmar Ramsinh Nathabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2019

26.Lastly, as regards the submission that the action of the appellants is highly discriminatory inasmuch as some similarly situated persons have been appointed / absorbed as Sepoys, the argument is stated to be rejected. It is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and corresponding legal obligation on the State. Only because an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated. It is trite law that there cannot be equality in illegality. (Ref. Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India [(2005) 3 SCC 16], State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh [(2006) 9 SCC 82], State v. Sashi Balasubramaniam [(2006) 13 SCC 252] and State of Orissa v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo [(2007) 15 SCC 129]"
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Union Of India vs Gulshan Kumar on 10 April, 2019

In Prasanna Kumar Sahoo's case, the issue was whether, the State Government could take a policy decision in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution, contrary to the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Apex Court answered the issue by holding that even a policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India O.P.(CAT) Nos.173, 176 & 190 of 2018 19 would be subservient to the Recruitment Rules framed by the State either in terms of a legislative act or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was held that a purported policy decision issued by way of an executive instruction cannot override the statute or statutory rules, far less the constitutional provisions.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V G Arun - Full Document

Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence & ... vs Navneet Kumar & Ors on 5 November, 2019

The same principle was reiterated in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 234, A.K. Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 1 SCC 544, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Om Prakash Dubey reported in (2007) 1 SCC 373 and State of Orissa and Ors. Vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo reported in (2007) 15 SCC 129.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Vimal Kumar Saigal vs Office Of Collector Of Stamps & Ors on 16 January, 2020

25. As far as the Circular dated 03.01.2003 is concerned, he submits that executive orders cannot override, alter or amend the Statutory Rules and Regulations. He places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in K. Kuppusamy & Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 469; Ajaya Kumar Das vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 136; and State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 15 SCC 129.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - N Chawla - Full Document

Sk Nausad Rahaman vs Union Of India on 10 March, 2022

Rule 4(ii) commenced with a non-obstante provision in terms of which, the jurisdictional Chief Commissionerate of Central Excise was empowered to order that any post in the Commissionerate may be filled up by absorption of persons holding the same or comparable post belonging to the cadre of another Commissionerate under the CBEC. The non-obstante provision was necessary because Rule 4(i) contained a mandate for each Commissionerate to have its own separate cadre unless the CBEC directed otherwise. The plain consequence of each Commissionerate having its own cadre was to preclude the appointment of a person belonging to the cadre of another Commissionerate by way of absorption. The bar on the absorption of persons from outside the cadre was lifted as a consequence of Rule 4(ii), which by embodying a non-obstante provision allowed the jurisdictional Chief Commissionerate to allow a post in the Commissionerate to be filled by 26 Union of India and Others v. Somasundaram Viswanath and Others, (1989) 1 SCC 175, para 6 27 State of Orissa and Others v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo (2007) 15 SCC 129, para 12 29 PART D persons holding the same or comparable post but belonging to the cadre of another Commissionerate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 152 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next