Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Munna Lal Yadav vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour And Anr. on 30 January, 2006

Naveen Chand Shukla vs Cgst on 27 April, 2023

Subsequent to a particular promotion when a promotion is found to have been done without observance of procedure or due to any other infirmities with reference to standing instructions of DoPT, the same DoPT OM provides for re-visiting such promotions by conducting review DPC of original DPCs without affording any opportunity of personal hearing or showing cause to the affected person(s) Since executive instructions of Government of India on promotions as well as demotions do not provides for a mechanism of showing cause or affording an opportunity of personal hearing before proceeding to nullify/modify/change any promotion already affected on the recommendations of DPC, therefore, this procedure was not exhausted in the instant case as it was not required to be so. Furthermore, this legal and factual stand is further supported by the Judiciary as well. The Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide its order dated 30.01.2006 in Munna Lal Yadav Vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Utkarsh Srivastava vs M/O Defence on 12 December, 2024

"12. What emerges from the law laid down by various judgments of the Supreme Court is that normally in all cases of clear violations of principles of natural justice, the Courts can be approached fearlessly but the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked as hackneyed incantations to be thoughtlessly Digitally MADHU signed by Page 41 of 51 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./2/2018 incited in all cases. Their applicability has to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each case. Some of the instances where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to interfere in spite of breach of principles of natural justice are where no actual prejudice is caused to the affected party; or cases, where only one conclusion is possible and permissible and giving of an opportunity of hearing would not make any difference; or the result would not be different or in cases of undisputed and admitted facts; or cases where no useful purpose would be served even if the requirement of issuing a notice is insisted upon; or cases where the person concerned is so unconnected with the impugned irregularity that he would have nothing to say even on being noticed; or cases where adherence to the principles is reduced to a useless formality etc. I may hasten to add that this is not an exhaustive but only an illustrative list of some of the instances where the Courts have refused to interfere even if there has been breach of the principles of natural justice. Each case has to be judged on its own facts to come to the conclusion whether the principles of natural justice can be invoked or whether non-compliance with them would render the action void or contrary to law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandeep Gupta vs Central Goods And Service Tax on 15 July, 2021

9. Learned counsel for the respondents in the short counter reply has referred the relevant DOPT OM, to contend that when a person is promoted, no notice is given to him. Similarly, when a promotion is found to have been made without observance of procedure or due to any other infirmities with reference to standing instructions of DoPT, the same DoPT OM provides for re-visiting such promotions by conducting review DPC of original DPCs, without affording any opportunity of personal hearing or showing cause to the affected person(s). Since executive instructions of Government of India on promotions as well as demotions do not provides for a mechanism of showing cause or affording an opportunity of personal hearing before proceeding to nullify/modify/change any promotion already Page 6 of 13 O.A. No. 330/00207/2021 O.A.No. 330/00211/2021 O.A. No.330/00212/2021 and O.A. No. 330/00272/2021 affected on the recommendations of DPC, therefore, the question of grant of opportunity of hearing to the applicant does not arise in the instant case. Moreso, this submission is duly supported by the judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Courts' order dated 30.1.2006 in Munna Lal Yadav Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shambhu Alias Shambhudayal Maali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2023

7. This is a case where the petitioner who was an encroacher over the land in question is trying to get advantage of his status as alleged possessor. Interestingly, an application was preferred by the petitioner under Sections 115 and 116 of MPLRC before Tahsildar which is the provision only invoked for correction of arithmetical/clerical error and not for recording possession of any possessor, therefore, under the garb of that application which appears prima facie innocuous yet misplaced had the wider meaning. Original proceedings stand vitiated by the act of petitioner and tacit connivance or ignorance of Tahsildar, Baroda (who was posted at the relevant point of time) thus such illegal act cannot be countenanced in any manner. Even if this order of Collector on any pretext (although does not appear to be available) is quashed, then it would result in restoration of an illegal order. This Court in the case of Munna Lal Yadav Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another, 2006(3) 4 MPHT 39 has discussed the said principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL and others Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Smt.Rekha Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2015

In the similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the cases of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 105, Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54, State of Manipur and others vs. Y. Token Singh and others, (2007) 5 SCC 65 and Haryana Financial Corporation and Another vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 and Hitendra Singh S/0 Bhupendra Singh and others Vs. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth by Registrar and others, (2014) 8 SCC 369 as well as this court in the case of Munna Lal Yadav vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour and another, 2006 (3) MPHT 39, has held that non issuance of a notice to the employee is not fatal to the order passed by the authorities when the facts involved are undisputed or in cases where the issuance of a notice would not serve any useful purpose and would be a useless formality. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner possesses a D.Ed. Certificate and therefore, is entitled for an additional 20 marks under Rule 9 of the Rules 2001. It is stated that if the aforesaid 20 marks are awarded to the petitioner, she would even otherwise be entitled to an appointment.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shyamlal Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2015

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any case to grant ad interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition moreso as the present case is one where glaring and apparent illegalities have been committed by the officer issuing the order and as the petitioner can be adequately compensated in case the petition is ultimately allowed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Awadhlal Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 June, 2015

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any case to grant ad interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition moreso as the present case is one where glaring and apparent illegalities have been committed by the officer issuing the order and as the petitioner can be adequately compensated in case the petition is ultimately allowed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Smt . Premwati Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2015

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any case to grant ad interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition moreso as the present case is one where glaring and apparent illegalities have been committed by the officer issuing the order and as the petitioner can be adequately compensated in case the petition is ultimately allowed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1