Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.45 seconds)
Nema Ram Jakhar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 7 December, 2000 cites

Sarada Panchayat Samiti Iii Gr. ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 12 November, 1991

In view of the above, the importance of primary education cannot be overlooked; nor there can be any latitude for making any kind of deviation therefrom and this Court had persistently depricated the practice of giving employment to untrained persons which is evident from the judgments of this Court in Chanda Tamboli v. Panchayat Samili Mandal (12); Bej Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (13); Hari Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (14); Kundal Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (15) Ragvendra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (16) and Smt. Harsh Lala v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (17) and its appeal Smt. HarshaLata v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (18) and Sarda Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (19); Panna Ram and Ors. v. Panchayat Samiti Sergar and Anr. (20); Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (21) and Bansroadgarh Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (22).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Indira Sawhney vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 December, 1999

While deciding the said case a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2); Purustiottam v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Anr. (3); Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors. (4); Indira Sawhni v. Union of India and Ors. (5) and A.P. Aggarwal v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. (6), and held that every State action, in order to survive, must not be succeptible to the vice of an arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 88 - M J Rao - Full Document

A.P.Aggarwal vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Another on 16 November, 1999

While deciding the said case a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2); Purustiottam v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Anr. (3); Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors. (4); Indira Sawhni v. Union of India and Ors. (5) and A.P. Aggarwal v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. (6), and held that every State action, in order to survive, must not be succeptible to the vice of an arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 105 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 1993

Thus, Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General stated that altogether 11,847 posts of "Shiksha Sahyogi" have been filled up. Even if 20% reservation is given to the women candidates, there must be more Ihan 2,000 women "Shiksha Sa-hayogis." But in the entire State their total number comes to 898 i.e. about 7%. So it is in the aforesaid backdrop that 100% of these posts had been provided in favour of the women candidates. Shri Mehta has further submitted that State cannot in any circumstance escape from the liability of basic education of the children which has been declared to be a fundamental right by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (8). Moreso, he agreed that children must be given education only by the compelent trained persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 957 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Kalu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 1999

In view of the above, the importance of primary education cannot be overlooked; nor there can be any latitude for making any kind of deviation therefrom and this Court had persistently depricated the practice of giving employment to untrained persons which is evident from the judgments of this Court in Chanda Tamboli v. Panchayat Samili Mandal (12); Bej Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (13); Hari Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (14); Kundal Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (15) Ragvendra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (16) and Smt. Harsh Lala v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (17) and its appeal Smt. HarshaLata v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (18) and Sarda Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (19); Panna Ram and Ors. v. Panchayat Samiti Sergar and Anr. (20); Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (21) and Bansroadgarh Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (22).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs The State Of Bombay Andhusseinbhoy ... on 10 March, 1954

(19). Further, Articles 15 and 16 inhibit the discrimination only and only on the grounds mentioned in these Articles including the sex. But the said Articles do not prohibit the said principle making the discrimination on the ground other than those mentioned therein, or grounds mentioned therein coupled with other consideration. (Vide Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (25); Javed Niyaz Beg and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (26) and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors. (27) and a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. High Court of Judicature for Rajaslhan and Ors. (28). In the instant cases, as the discrimination is not on the ground of sex only but also to fulfil the objective that the girls may also attend the schools and for up-lifting their education, the Government has framed the Scheme to have one female teacher in every school so that their parents may not have an apprehension in sending them to the school. In such circumstances, even if it is termed as "reservation", it may be permissible to some extent in taw.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 53 - V Bose - Full Document

Javed Niaz Beg And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 17 April, 1980

(19). Further, Articles 15 and 16 inhibit the discrimination only and only on the grounds mentioned in these Articles including the sex. But the said Articles do not prohibit the said principle making the discrimination on the ground other than those mentioned therein, or grounds mentioned therein coupled with other consideration. (Vide Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (25); Javed Niyaz Beg and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (26) and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors. (27) and a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. High Court of Judicature for Rajaslhan and Ors. (28). In the instant cases, as the discrimination is not on the ground of sex only but also to fulfil the objective that the girls may also attend the schools and for up-lifting their education, the Government has framed the Scheme to have one female teacher in every school so that their parents may not have an apprehension in sending them to the school. In such circumstances, even if it is termed as "reservation", it may be permissible to some extent in taw.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next