Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)
B.Manjula vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2018 cites

M. Kesavulu And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 18 September, 2003

(per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Ramesh Ranganathan) The validity of the Telangana Teachers (Regulation of Teachers) Rules, 2018, notified in G.O.Ms. No.16, School Education (Service II) Department dated 06.06.2018 (the "2018 Rules" for short), is questioned in these Writ Petitions as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 243G and 371D of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 read with the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, apart from being contrary to the judgments in M. Kesavulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and Government of A.P. v. P. Vema Reddy2, and the interim order of status quo passed in W.P. No.23267 of 2017 and W.P. No.23274 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017. A consequential direction is sought to strike down the Rules notified in G.O.Ms. No.16 dated 06.06.2018.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 60 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Public Services Tribunal Bar ... vs State Of U.P. & Another on 29 January, 2003

Courts should not, ordinarily, interfere with a transfer order made in public interest and for administrative reasons. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place, and is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders, issued by the competent authority, do not violate any of his legal rights. (Shilpi Bose v. 8 (1993) 4 SCC 357 9 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 10 (2004) 3 SCC 172 11 (1993) 1 SCC 148 12 (2004) 11 SCC 402 7 State of Bihar13; Major General J.K. Bansal4). Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies, and such orders should not be interfered with except where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner. (Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P.,14; Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat15).
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 448 - Full Document

Welfare Assocn. A.R.P., Maharashtra & ... vs Ranjit P. Gohil & Ors on 18 February, 2003

28 (1983) 2 SCC 402 29 (1972) 2 SCC 744 30 (2002) 3 SCC 302 39 (State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn.31; Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar32; Welfare Association, A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohili33; Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India34). The Rule making authority enjoys considerable latitude, and exercises its power enriched by its experience and taking into consideration myriad circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 105 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P. & ... vs Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, ... on 17 November, 2003

(Veneet Agrawal v. Union of India68; Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban64; Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd.63; Hukam Chand67; Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar69; and Prohibition & Excise Suptd., A.P. v. Toddy Tappers Coop. Society70). Where a statutory provision is directory, Courts would not interfere to compel the performance or punish breach of the duty created by such provision, and disobedience of such a provision would not entail any invalidity (Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edn., at p. 229; Tulsiram Patel25).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 25 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs Regional Director, National Council ... on 7 February, 2003

While the 2018 Rules have statutory force, as they were made in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and Sections 78 and 99 of the A.P. Education Act, G.O.Ms.No.61 dated 24.05.2018 are merely in the nature of executive instructions. Executive Instructions can only supplement and not supplant Rules, (Senior Supdt. of Post Offices v. Izhar Hussain89; St. Johns Teachers Training 89 (1989) 4 SCC 318 75 Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE90), and cannot be so framed or utilised as to override the provisions of the Rules as it would then destroy the very basis of the rule of law, and strike at the very root of orderly administration of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 2323 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1