Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dewanti Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 October, 2015
In the case of Dewanti Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
reported in 2006(4) PLJR 44, the Court has examined the circular of the
Government which covers the rule of selection of Anganbari Sevika
which provides that a person, having better qualification, shall be
preferred but, despite that the self same circular still directs Aam
Sabha to select Anganbadi Sevika but, natural preference to be given
to the person having better qualification but, that is not the ultimate
and absolute requirement. Despite a person, being better educated,
may not be selected by the Aam Sabha for many reason as the Aam
Sabha has to focus on the subject that the very purpose of the
selection is to entail appropriate attention to tiny toddlers of the
village. Apart from qualification, many other aspects are required to
look into such as kindness, zeal including the humanitarian approach.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2339 of 2013 dt.23-02-2016 8
May be a case where the Aam Sabha appoints a person having less
qualification but the women is otherwise eligible and more suitable
than better qualified candidate for the purpose she is engaged.
Nirmala Kuwer vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 December, 2014
"8. On a consideration of condition no.5 laid down in
Circular dated 13.6.1998 it is clear that it speaks of
the same qualification. The only other condition where
the said term has been used is that relating to
educational qualification provided in condition no.1.
There it has been stated that the minimum educational
qualification for Anganbari Sewika is matric pass but
preference will be given to candidate having higher
educational qualification. It is evident that the
preference is to a higher qualification in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2339 of 2013 dt.23-02-2016 9
either Intermediate pass or a graduate. Thus, whether
a matriculate is in 1st Division or 2nd Division, as in
the present case, in terms of condition no.5, both have
to be treated as equal and as possession the same
qualification. In such a situation a widow or
abandoned woman has to be given preference over the
other candidate who is also a matriculate and not
having higher educational qualification."
Neetu Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 March, 2015
This Court in the Division Bench Judgment in the case
of Neetu Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20,
has held that Anganbari Sevika is not the post having security of
tenure or protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Considering the very nature of the engagement which provides
honorarium, if the person aggrieved may approach to the civil court
for damages. There is nothing at stake in such a scheme other than the
honorarium. In such cases, in case of illegal termination,
reinstatement is not appropriate. Even if any breach of scheme or any
other principle of law, the claim should be ordinarily permitted, if
found good on merit, only for damages.
Chairman And Managing Director,United ... vs P.C.Kakkar Chairman And Managing ... on 11 February, 2003
In the case of Chairman &
Managing Director, United Commercial Bank Vs. P.C. Kakkar- reported in
2003(4) SCC 364, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
Gridco Limited & Anr vs Sadananda Doloi & Ors on 16 December, 2011
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as
per the instructions issued from time to time, in normal circumstances,
the person, having better marks, would be preferred unless the
Selection Committee gives its own reason for rejecting the claim of
such candidate and prefers selection on suitable consideration. The
circular provides that the person having better marks will be given
preference. In the present case, both the female candidates have
identical qualification of I.A. whereas the petitioner has a better
marks, Matriculation and Intermediate Examination as well as falls in
the category of B.P.L. and she must have been given preference over
Sunita Kumari, private respondent no.9 who has got 3rd division in
Intermediate and not belonging to a B.P.L. category.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2339 of 2013 dt.23-02-2016 5
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of this Court in the case of GRIDCO Limited & Anr. Vs. Sri
Sadananda Doloi & Ors. reported in 2012(1) PLJR SC 321.