Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)Sudhoo vs M/S. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works And Others on 6 August, 1990
14. Through Sudhoo v. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works & Ors. reported as
(1990) 4 SCC 37, he argued that the High Court need not interfere with
the findings reached by the prescribed authority after appreciation of
evidence.
Bhagwati Prasad And Ors vs Delhi State Mineral Development ... on 15 December, 1989
15. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had failed to produce
any Recruitment Rules for the said post to establish its claim that
Respondent No. 2 was not qualified for the said post as alleged. Learned
counsel by citing Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Minerals Corporation
reported as (1990) 1 SCC 361, adduced his submission that lack of
prescribed educational qualification would not come in the way of
promotion of an employee who has rendered his services on the said post
for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, an employee will be
entitled to equal pay and allowances at par with persons appointed on
regular basis or discharge similar duties.
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
12. Lastly, learned counsel relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka &
Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1, to submit that when
a person enters a temporary employment or gets engaged as a contractual
or casual worker, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment
being temporary, casual or contractual. Such a person cannot invoke the
theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an
appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper
procedure for selection.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Shama Prashant Raje vs Ganpatrao & Ors on 27 September, 2000
19. It is vital to state that the High Court, while exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226, can interfere with the findings of the lower
Court. It is trite in law that in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution, the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings
recorded by a competent Tribunal. The present jurisdiction is supervisory
and not appellate. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shama Prashant Raje
v. Ganpatrao & Ors. reported as (2000) 7 SCC 522, held that on a mere
perusal of the order of an inferior Tribunal, if the High Court comes to a
conclusion that such Tribunal has committed manifest error by
misconstruing certain documents, or the High Court comes to a
conclusion that on the basis of the material on record, it is not possible for
a reasonable man to come to a conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, then
the High Court will be fully justified in interfering with the findings of the
inferior Tribunal.
1