Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 342 (2.43 seconds)
Documents citing Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987

U.P Public Service Commission vs Sangeeta And 81 Others on 5 March, 2019

In the facts of the present case, the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra) and Durgacharan Misra Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra) is in apposite, for the reason, Rule 15(4) of the (amended) Rules, as discussed above, clearly obliged the appellant-Commission to recommend only such number of candidates as it considered fit for appointment. That obligation made Rule 15(4) of the (amended) Rules, stand on a completely different footing to the Rules/law discussed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Dipti Dipak Kolapkar vs The Maharashtra Public Service on 7 May, 2009

"8. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are persuaded to the view that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 60 (33%) out of the maximum marks of 180 set apart for the viva-voce examination does not, by itself, incur any constitutional infirmity. The principles laid down in the cases of Ajay Hasia (AIR 1981 SC 487), Lila Dhar (AIR 1981 SC 1777), Ashok Kumar Yadav (AIR 1987 SC 454), do not militate against or render impermissible such a prescription. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the stipulation that officers to be selected for higher ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:35:01 ::: 50 services and who are, with the passage of time, expected to man increasingly responsible positions in the core services such as the Administrative Services and the Police Services should be men endowed with personality traits conducive to the levels of performance expected in such services. There are features that, distinguish, for instance, Accounts Service from the Poice Service - a distinction that drawn upon and is accentuated by the personal qualities of the officer. Academic excellence is one thing. Ability to deal with the public with tact and imagination is another. Both are necessary for an officer. The dose that is demanded may vary according to the nature of the service. Administrative and Police Services constitute the cutting edge of the administrative machinery and the requirement of higher traits of personality is not an unreasonable expectation.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Anita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 1 March, 2024

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree. This Court in Manjusree relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 53/69 India, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa. In none of the cases, was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha considered.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Archana Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 1 March, 2024

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree. This Court in Manjusree relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 53/69 India, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa. In none of the cases, was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha considered.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Anr vs Bal Mukund Sah & Ors on 14 March, 2000

The authority giving green signal as per Article 16(4) read with Article 335 can be only the High Court. It will be totally out of picture so far as enactment of such straight jacket reservation provisions dehors the High Courts consultation goes. In this view of the matter, the broad submission of Dr.Dhavan that reservation in fulfillment of right to equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) read with Article 16(4) can be resorted to without reference to the High Court and therefore, the impugned Act cannot be found fault with, cannot be accepted. Reliance placed by Dr.Dhavan to the decision of this Court in Durgacharan Misra vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 646, wherein at para 15 a two Judge Bench observed that Rules under Article 234 are framed by the Governor, in exercise of his rule making power under Article 309, cannot be of any assistance to him. Even if the rules contemplated by Article 234 are framed by the Governor under Article 309 proviso, that power is clearly fettered and regulated by Article 234 as well as Article 233 wherein consultation of the High Court in one case and total clearance by the High Court by way of recommendation of the appointees in the other case, cannot be given a go by. Turning to the contentions canvassed by Shri Dwivedi in support of the companion appeal, it may be stated that he adopted the arguments of Dr.Dhavan but he further contended that under Article 234, the rule making power of the Governor is hedged in by consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. So far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, as per Article 320 sub-article (4), it is not required to be consulted in respect of the manner in which any provision referred to in clause (4) of Article 16 may be made or as respects the manner in which effect may be given to the provisions of Article 335. Shri Dwivedi, therefore, submitted that consultation with the Public Service Commission cannot be in connection with Article 16(4) and if that is so, by necessary implication, consultation with the High Court under Article 234 can also be treated to be standing at par and consequently the decision on any policy of reservation as per Article 16(4) need not get covered by any consultation with the High Court. It is difficult to appreciate this contention. The Public Service Commission is merely an examining body which examines the candidates for seeking appointments to the advertised posts. It has, therefore, nothing to do with the policy decision of laying down of reservation in appointments to the posts. That policy has to be resorted to under Article 16(4) by the authority calling upon the Public Service Commission to proceed with the procedure of selection of suitable candidates for filling up advertised posts subject to the conditions laid down in the advertisement. That type of consultation naturally would not stand at par with the consultation with the High Court as laid down by Article 234 of the Constitution. As seen earlier, consultation with the High Court as envisaged by Article 234 is for fructifying the Constitutional mandate of preserving the independence of Judiciary, which is its basic structure. The Public Service Commission has no such Constitutional imperative to be fulfilled. The scope of examining bodys consultation can never be equated with that of consultation with the appointing body whose agent is the former. It is also pertinent to note that the essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and a genuine consideration of that advice which in turn depends on sufficient information and time being given to the party concerned to enable it to tender useful advice. It is difficult to appreciate how the Governor while consulting the Public Service Commission before promulgating the Rules of Recruitment under Article 234 has to solicit similar type of advice as he would solicit from the High Court on due consultation. The advice which in the process of consultation can be tendered by the Public Service Commission will confine itself to the Constitutional requirements of Article 320. They are entirely different from the nature of consultation and advice to be solicited from the High Court which is having full control over Subordinate Judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution and is directly concerned with the drafting of efficient judicial appointments so that appropriate material will be available to it through the process of selection both at the grass-root level and at the apex level of the District Judiciary. Consultation, keeping in view the role of the High Court under Article 234 read with Article 235, stands on an entirely different footing as compared to the consultation with the Public Service Commission which has to discharge its functions of entirely different type as envisaged by Article 320 of the Constitution. Naturally, therefore, consultation with the High Court will have a direct linkage with the policy decision as to how many posts should be advertised, what are the felt needs of District Judiciary and whether there can be any reservation which can be permitted to be engrafted in the Rules framed by the Governor consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of judicial administration in the State. It is also pertinent to note that there is no express fetter regarding consultation with the High Court excluding Article 16(4) as we find in Article 320 (4) in connection with the Public Service Commissions consultation. This very departure and absence of such exclusion of the High Courts consultation indicate the intention of the Constitutional makers that policy decision as per Article 16(4) has to be taken by the Governor in consultation with the High Court while framing appropriate rules governing the recruitment and appointments to the Judicial Service both at the apex level and at the grass-root level. Submission of Shri Dwivedi that legislative power stands independently and dehors Articles 235 and 234 cannot be countenanced for the detailed reasons given by us while rejecting the contentions of Dr.Dhavan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 108 - Cited by 92 - R P Sethi - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Anr vs Bal Mukund Sah & Ors on 14 March, 2000

The authority giving green signal as per Article 16(4) read with Article 335 can be only the High Court. It will be totally out of picture so far as enactment of such straight jacket reservation provisions dehors the High Courts consultation goes. In this view of the matter, the broad submission of Dr.Dhavan that reservation in fulfillment of right to equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) read with Article 16(4) can be resorted to without reference to the High Court and therefore, the impugned Act cannot be found fault with, cannot be accepted. Reliance placed by Dr.Dhavan to the decision of this Court in Durgacharan Misra vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 646, wherein at para 15 a two Judge Bench observed that Rules under Article 234 are framed by the Governor, in exercise of his rule making power under Article 309, cannot be of any assistance to him. Even if the rules contemplated by Article 234 are framed by the Governor under Article 309 proviso, that power is clearly fettered and regulated by Article 234 as well as Article 233 wherein consultation of the High Court in one case and total clearance by the High Court by way of recommendation of the appointees in the other case, cannot be given a go by. Turning to the contentions canvassed by Shri Dwivedi in support of the companion appeal, it may be stated that he adopted the arguments of Dr.Dhavan but he further contended that under Article 234, the rule making power of the Governor is hedged in by consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. So far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, as per Article 320 sub-article (4), it is not required to be consulted in respect of the manner in which any provision referred to in clause (4) of Article 16 may be made or as respects the manner in which effect may be given to the provisions of Article 335. Shri Dwivedi, therefore, submitted that consultation with the Public Service Commission cannot be in connection with Article 16(4) and if that is so, by necessary implication, consultation with the High Court under Article 234 can also be treated to be standing at par and consequently the decision on any policy of reservation as per Article 16(4) need not get covered by any consultation with the High Court. It is difficult to appreciate this contention. The Public Service Commission is merely an examining body which examines the candidates for seeking appointments to the advertised posts. It has, therefore, nothing to do with the policy decision of laying down of reservation in appointments to the posts. That policy has to be resorted to under Article 16(4) by the authority calling upon the Public Service Commission to proceed with the procedure of selection of suitable candidates for filling up advertised posts subject to the conditions laid down in the advertisement. That type of consultation naturally would not stand at par with the consultation with the High Court as laid down by Article 234 of the Constitution. As seen earlier, consultation with the High Court as envisaged by Article 234 is for fructifying the Constitutional mandate of preserving the independence of Judiciary, which is its basic structure. The Public Service Commission has no such Constitutional imperative to be fulfilled. The scope of examining bodys consultation can never be equated with that of consultation with the appointing body whose agent is the former. It is also pertinent to note that the essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and a genuine consideration of that advice which in turn depends on sufficient information and time being given to the party concerned to enable it to tender useful advice. It is difficult to appreciate how the Governor while consulting the Public Service Commission before promulgating the Rules of Recruitment under Article 234 has to solicit similar type of advice as he would solicit from the High Court on due consultation. The advice which in the process of consultation can be tendered by the Public Service Commission will confine itself to the Constitutional requirements of Article 320. They are entirely different from the nature of consultation and advice to be solicited from the High Court which is having full control over Subordinate Judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution and is directly concerned with the drafting of efficient judicial appointments so that appropriate material will be available to it through the process of selection both at the grass-root level and at the apex level of the District Judiciary. Consultation, keeping in view the role of the High Court under Article 234 read with Article 235, stands on an entirely different footing as compared to the consultation with the Public Service Commission which has to discharge its functions of entirely different type as envisaged by Article 320 of the Constitution. Naturally, therefore, consultation with the High Court will have a direct linkage with the policy decision as to how many posts should be advertised, what are the felt needs of District Judiciary and whether there can be any reservation which can be permitted to be engrafted in the Rules framed by the Governor consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of judicial administration in the State. It is also pertinent to note that there is no express fetter regarding consultation with the High Court excluding Article 16(4) as we find in Article 320 (4) in connection with the Public Service Commissions consultation. This very departure and absence of such exclusion of the High Courts consultation indicate the intention of the Constitutional makers that policy decision as per Article 16(4) has to be taken by the Governor in consultation with the High Court while framing appropriate rules governing the recruitment and appointments to the Judicial Service both at the apex level and at the grass-root level. Submission of Shri Dwivedi that legislative power stands independently and dehors Articles 235 and 234 cannot be countenanced for the detailed reasons given by us while rejecting the contentions of Dr.Dhavan.
Supreme Court of India Cites 108 - Cited by 53 - S B Majmudar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next