Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)The Police Act, 1949
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
18. Shri N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel also argued that the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case, cannot be applied to the factual matrix of the present case since there was no irregularity or illegality in the appointment of the petitioners and outside the constitutional scheme of public employment. With the above said legal and factual submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray for allowing the writ petitions for achieving the larger objectives of justice and good conscience.
Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013
In the above circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, Shri N.G.R.Prasad would assume larger legal significance in favour of the writ petitioners, particularly, the legal dictum expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Nihal Singh versus State of Punjab) (cited supra), which judgment has been extracted in extenso supra. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment would squarely apply to the factual matrix of the present case.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
g) (1992) 4 SCC 99 (Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union versus Delhi Administration & others). In this case, the workers were employed under the scheme Jawahar Rozgar Yojna by the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), a registered autonomous society. The Hon'ble Supreme court has held that the workers have no right to claim regularization of their service because of completion of 240 or more days of work and that indiscriminate regularization jeopardizes public interest.
Section 17 in The Police Act, 1861 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors vs N. Hargopal & Ors on 13 April, 1987
28. Such a procedure making recruitments through the employment exchanges was held to be consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. N. Hargopal and Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 308.[4]
S.S. Dhanoa vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 July, 1991
34. It is no doubt that the assessment of the need to employ a certain number of people for discharging a particular responsibility of the State under the Constitution is always with the executive Government of the day subject to the overall control of the Legislature. That does not mean that an examination by a Constitutional Court regarding the accuracy of the assessment of the need is barred. This Court in S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 567 did examine the correctness of the assessment made by the executive government. It was a case where Union of India appointed two Election Commissioners in addition to the Chief Election Commissioner just before the general elections to the Lok Sabha. Subsequent to the elections, the new government abolished those posts. While examining the legality of such abolition, this Court had to deal with an argument[6] whether the need to have additional commissioners ceased subsequent to the election. It was the case of the Union of India that on the date posts were created there was a need to have additional commissioners in view of certain factors such as the reduction of the lower age limit of the voters etc. This Court categorically held that The truth of the matter as is apparent from the record is that .there was no need for the said appointments...