Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.30 seconds)
Riasat Ali vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 25 July, 2003 cites

Suraj Prasad Tiwari vs Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur ... on 1 May, 1998

However, in para 12 of the reported Judgment in the case of Suraj Prasad Tewari (supra) learned single Judge, we note with due respect, did not appreciate that even 'intents' and 'features' of service Justify declaration of it as a civil service or post, but it cannot be treated as such if Legislature specifically--through legislative enactment--declares it not to be a civil service/civil post, and consequently, protection of Article 311 cannot be taken resort to Article 311 of the Constitution of India to treat it as a civil service or a civil post.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 6 - O P Garg - Full Document

H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narain Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh. on 10 October, 1966

In para 23 of the said judgment, his lordship has referred to the Explanation attached to Section 10 and observed that "in my Judgment, the Explanation is of no assistance in the determination of the controversy .................. any question under Article 311, Constitution of India has to be determined with reference to the connotation of these words as appearing in the Constitution of India and observed that Explanation was of no assistance for the determination of the controversy. His lordship observed that "the meaning of the term as appearing in the Constitution of India cannot be controlled or whittled down by any ordinary law. If a person holds a civil post as contemplated by our Constitution, he cannot be excluded from the protection or privilege conferred upon him by a constitutional provision by the simple expedient of excluding him from the definition of holder of civil post by an ordinary statutory provision. Section 10, can therefore, be of no assistance to the defendants".
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next