Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Manager, Reserve Bank Of India vs S. Mani And Ors. on 25 June, 2002
16. The decision in (Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors.) is also based on a settlement arrived at between the Workers Federation and the Management. In the absence of any settlement between the writ petitioners and the management in these cases, as rightly contended by the Learned Counsel for the respondents, petitioners are not entitled to seek permanency or regular employment.
P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002
37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General . Hence, the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also we cannot issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution, and the judiciary, too, must know its limits.
State Bank Of India vs G.K. Deshak on 21 January, 1993
In (State Bank of India v. G.K. Deshak) the Honourable Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review in respect of the medical fitness of a candidate. In paragraph 3 the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows,
Union Of India & Anr vs N. Chandrasekharan & Ors on 29 January, 1998
24. The Learned Counsel for the management is also right in contending that the first respondent in W.A. No. 2077 of 2005 having taken part in the selection process, is estopped from challenging the notification inviting application, mode of selection, etc., after his participation and non-selection as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision (Union of India and Anr. v. N. Chandrasekharan and Ors.), wherein in paragraph 13 it is held thus,
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
11. It is not in dispute that the appellants in W.A. Nos. 2112 and 2113 of 2005 and first respondent in W.A. No. 2077 of 2005 are ex-casual drivers of Indian Airlines Limited. It is also not in dispute that at the time when they were engaged as casuals, no selection procedures were followed by the Indian Airlines Limited and no medical test was conducted to assess their medical fitness to work as drivers. It is also not in dispute that all the three persons applied for the regular driver posts pursuant to the notification dated 28.9.2001, participated in the Trade test, interview and medical test. Admittedly, appellants are selected as casual drivers by the Indian Airlines Limited by not following the recruitment rules and therefore they have no right to claim regularisation in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court (Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.). In paragraph 43 of the Judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995
(iii) In (Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir), (SCC p.9) it is held thus,
Dr. R. Murali vs Dr. R. Kamalakkannan And Three Others on 1 October, 1999
(iv) The above said decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court were folowed by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in AIR 2000 MADRAS 174 (R. Murali v. R. Kamalakkannan)(FB) and in paragraph 55, question No. 2 was answered thus,
Question No. 2: We hold that writ petitioners are not entitled to challenge the selection after having participated in the written examination on the principle of estoppel.