Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)
Nidhi Sharma vs State Of Raj And Anr on 31 May, 2013 cites

Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal And Anr on 8 January, 1981

Objection about this question is that the very framing of question is contrary to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the options given are also incorrect. Similar question given in the competitive examination conducted for Rajasthan Judicial Services, 2011 was deleted by this court. According to RPSC, this question was though similarly worded as question no.56 in A-series of the preliminary examination of RJS but option no.4 of this question was given as option no.2 in that examination paper, option no.1 was mentioned as option no.4 and option no.2 as also option no.3 and option no.3 as option no.1. Thus, the options in RJS preliminary examination were arranged in entirely different order. Fourth option of the question herein was mentioned as option no.2 in that examination. Therefore, RPSC on its own deleted it and Division Bench of this court upheld. This court has to analyze the question in the light of the provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. provides that no court shall alter or review its judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Though this Section in its saving clause provides that Save as otherwise provide by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, ..., the Supreme Court in Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal (1981) 1 SCC 500 held that the inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - R S Pathak - Full Document

S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & Ors on 8 May, 1981

(1) Chief Minister and Prime Minister (2) Judge and Magistrate (3) Government servant appointed on deputation (4) Principal of Government College As per the petitioners, all four options given below this question are correct, whereas, according to RPSC, option no.3 is the correct answer because a government servant while on deputation would not be a public servant . To bring home their point, the respondents have cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others AIR 1981 SC 1395, wherein it has been held that a civil servant working on deputation with a cooperative society would not be a public servant and therefore sanction for his prosecution would not be necessary. Whenever a government servant is working on deputation against a non-government post, he would be as per the ratio of aforesaid judgment is not a public servant. This can be best understood with reference to Explanation 2 given below Section 21 of the IPC providing that Whenever the words public servant occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation. What is therefore important to decide the character of a public servant is that he should be in actual possession of the situation of a public servant. The option indicated as correct choice by RPSC is therefore the nearest correct answer. The objection of the petitioners is therefore rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 150 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Lila Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 August, 1981

10. The situation envisaged by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Lila Dhars case (Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 1981 SC 1777) on which strong reliance was placed is totally different from the contextual facts and the reliance thereon is also totally misplaced. Chinnappa Reddy, J. discussed about the case of services to which recruitment has necessarily been made from persons of mature personality and it is in that perspective it was held that interview test may be the only way subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied. The facts in the present context deal with Block Development Officers at the Panchayat level. Neither the job requires mature personality nor the recruitment should be on the basis of interview only, having regard to the nature and requirement of the concerned jobs. In any event, the Service Commission itself has recognised a written test as also viva voce test. The issue therefore pertains as to whether on a proper interpretation of the rules read with the instructions note, the written examination can be deemed to be a mere qualifying examination and the appointment can only be given through viva voce test - a plain reading of the same however would negate the question as posed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 295 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1