Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.40 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Article 21A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P vs Shiv Kumar Pathak on 25 July, 2017
22. It is also submitted that in the meantime, the judgment in the pending case of State Vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak was also pronounced, in which, it was held that the computation of quality point marks was not violative of Article 14. Though 15th amendment about introducing quality point marks was upheld but since the 66,655 appointments were already made under the interim order of Hon'ble Apex Court against 72,825 post on the basis of the advertisement dated 30.11.2011 (i.e. on the basis of TET marks only therefore the same were protected without any interference).
Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 December, 1996
10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that this process of zonewise selection has been in vogue since 1975 and has stood the test of time cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it was never challenged by anybody and was not subjected to judicial scrutiny at all. If on judicial scrutiny it cannot stand the test of reasonableness and constitutionality it cannot be allowed to continue and has to be struck down. But we make it clear that this judgment will have prospective application and whatever selections and appointments have so far been made in accordance with the impugned process of selection shall not be disturbed on the basis of this judgment. But in future no such selection shall be made on the zonal basis. If the Government is keen to make zonewise selection after allocating some posts for each zone, it may make such scheme or rules or adopt such process of selection which may not clash with the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India having regard to the guidelines laid down by this Court from time to time in various pronouncements. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. The appeals and writ petitions are allowed as indicated above.
Union Of India & Ors vs N. Hargopal & Ors on 13 April, 1987
V. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, (1996 AIR SCW 3979) this Court has distinguished Unionof India v. Hargopal,((1987) 3 SCC 308 : AIR 1987 SC 1227), on the basis of special facts of that case. It has observed that the better course for the State would be to Invite applications from employment exchanges as well as to advertise and also give wide publicity through T.V., Radio, etc. The Court had to consider whether persons, who had applied directly and not through employment exchanges should be considered. This Court upheld their claim for consideration.
State Of Maharashtra vs Raj Kumar on 30 March, 1982
25. This decision is not a direct authority for the proposition that a citizen cannot be preferred for employment under the State on the ground that he or she hails from rural area. However, what has been laid down in regard to the first point assumes some relevance in the cases on hand. The criterion for Identifying a rural candidate was held to be irrelevant, as it had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the present case, the position is much worse as the impugned circular does not spell out any criteria or indicia to determine whether an applicant is a rural candidate."
Harshendra Choubisa & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 30 July, 2002
He has again placed reliance to para 12 and 13 of Harshendra Choubissa v. State of Rajasthan; (2002) 6 SCC 393, which reads as under: