Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.35 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 245 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Inst.Of Medical Sc.&Res. ... vs Uoi on 9 April, 2014
In Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), at paragraph 5, it was observed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though Article 15 (1) and (2) bars
discrimination on grounds not only of religion, race, caste or sex but also of
place of birth, Article 16 (2) goes further and provides that no citizen shall
on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,
residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in state
employment. So far as employment under the state, or any local or other
authority is concerned, no citizen can be given preference nor can any
discrimination be practiced against him on the ground only of residence. It
would thus appear that residential requirement would be unconstitutional
35
as a condition of eligibility for employment or appointment to an office
under the State or under any local or other authority within the State or any
corporation, such as a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality
or agency of the State. But Article 16 (3) provides an exception to this rule
by laying down that Parliament may make a law "prescribing, in regard to a
class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the
government of, or any local or other authority, in a state or union territory,
any requirement as to residence within that state or union territory prior to
such employment or appointment". Parliament alone is given the right to
enact an exception to the ban on discrimination based on residence and
that too only with respect to positions within the employment of a State
Government. It is further laid down that wholesale reservation on the basis
of domicile or residence is unconstitutional and void as being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Sudhir Kumar Biswal And Ors on 16 August, 1994
She also relies on
the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.V.S.
Narasimha Rao & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another ,
reported in (1969) 1 SC 839, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India &
Others, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654, State of Orissa & Others v.
Sudhir Kumar Biswal & Others, reported in (1994) Supp 3 SCC 245,
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd v. CG Power and
Industrial Solutions Limited, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 383 :
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission ... vs Cg Power And Industrial Solutions ... on 12 May, 2021
She also relies on
the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.V.S.
Narasimha Rao & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another ,
reported in (1969) 1 SC 839, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India &
Others, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654, State of Orissa & Others v.
Sudhir Kumar Biswal & Others, reported in (1994) Supp 3 SCC 245,
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd v. CG Power and
Industrial Solutions Limited, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 383 :
The Punjab State Cooperative ... vs The Registrar Cooperative Societies on 11 January, 2022
In Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development
Bank (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the judgment
of the Constitution Bench in the case of Chairman, Railway Board v.
C.R.Rangadhamaiah, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623, wherein it was
observed that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights
of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity
as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which
seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or
availed of, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. The expression
'vested rights' or 'accrued rights' have been used in the context of a right
flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect
from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under
the rule in force at that time. Such an amendment having retrospective
operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to
the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and
violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
23. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
in WPS No. 1081/2020, 3005/2021 and 6864/2021, submits that the
notification dated 17.01.2012 was issued for advancement of the residents
of tribal areas in the State of Chhattisgarh and to safeguard and secure
government employment in their favour. It is submitted that the
respondents cannot alter or amend the criteria to change the rules of the
game after the process of selection had begun. He submits that although
other advertisements for recruitment were issued during the relevant
period, by the amended notification dated 30.01.2020, exception was
carved out only in respect of the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 and
therefore, the classification made to take out the advertisement dated
09.03.2019 beyond the purview of the notification dated 28.05.2019 is
arbitrary and illegal, there being no intelligible differentia between the
aforesaid advertisement and the other advertisements. He places reliance
on paragraphs 27, 32 to 36, 49 and 52 in Shri Sitaram Sugar Company
Limited & Another v. Union of India & Others , reported in (1990) 3 SCC
223, on paragraph 20 in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India & Others ,
reported in (2003) 2 SCC 673 and on paragraph 33 in Kallakkurichi Taluka
Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2013) 2 SCC 772.
Onkar Lal Bajaj Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 December, 2002
In Onkar Lal Bajaj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down that unequals cannot be clubbed and that an arbitrary exercise of
34
power and order passed without any application of mind deserves to be
quashed.