Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Asstt. Excise Commissioner vs Issac Peter on 22 February, 1994
They were not eligible to be absorbed in the accounts cadre as they belonged to and were to be retained in the common clerical cadre. That would not confer any enforceable right on them only on this basis. The facts which have been brought on record by the respondents in the reply to the writ petition have not been controverted by the petitioners. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Excise Commissioner v. Issac Peter reported in . The principles of promissory estoppel are not applicable where the petitioners have been given the benefits by mistake and they not entitled for the same under statutory Service Rules. The petitioners have failed to make out any case that they were entitled for such option to be included in the common accounts cadre under the provisions of Rules of 1967. In the earlier writ petition undertaking was given on the basis of the state of record as it stood and stated by the petitioners and this mistake has come to the notice of the respondents later on. It is always open to the respondents to correct such mistake and it has rightly been corrected in the present case. Absorption of the petitioners was contrary to the Rules of 1967 and in case the contention of the petitioners is accepted, on any ground, and the order dated 26-5-1987 is set aside then it will result in restoration of the order which is contrary to the provisions of Rules of 1967.
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
10. It is settled law that where issue of writ of Mandamus may have effect of restoration of an illegal order, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should decline to issue such a writ. Reference in this respect may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ; decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.M. Mani v. Kerala Staw Electricity Board, AIR 1968 Kerala 76; decision of Patna High Court in the case of Devendra Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar and Ors. ; and decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Himmat Jain v. State of Rajasthan . Having considered all the aspects of the matter, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances as well as the legal position as discussed above, none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners have been infringed by passing the order dated 26th May, 1987 by the respondents.
A.M. Mani vs Kerala State Electricity Board ... on 24 August, 1967
10. It is settled law that where issue of writ of Mandamus may have effect of restoration of an illegal order, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should decline to issue such a writ. Reference in this respect may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ; decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.M. Mani v. Kerala Staw Electricity Board, AIR 1968 Kerala 76; decision of Patna High Court in the case of Devendra Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar and Ors. ; and decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Himmat Jain v. State of Rajasthan . Having considered all the aspects of the matter, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances as well as the legal position as discussed above, none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners have been infringed by passing the order dated 26th May, 1987 by the respondents.
Devendra Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 12 January, 1977
10. It is settled law that where issue of writ of Mandamus may have effect of restoration of an illegal order, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should decline to issue such a writ. Reference in this respect may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ; decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.M. Mani v. Kerala Staw Electricity Board, AIR 1968 Kerala 76; decision of Patna High Court in the case of Devendra Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar and Ors. ; and decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Himmat Jain v. State of Rajasthan . Having considered all the aspects of the matter, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances as well as the legal position as discussed above, none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners have been infringed by passing the order dated 26th May, 1987 by the respondents.
Himmat Jain vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 5 November, 1993
10. It is settled law that where issue of writ of Mandamus may have effect of restoration of an illegal order, the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should decline to issue such a writ. Reference in this respect may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ; decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A.M. Mani v. Kerala Staw Electricity Board, AIR 1968 Kerala 76; decision of Patna High Court in the case of Devendra Prasad Gupta v. The State of Bihar and Ors. ; and decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Himmat Jain v. State of Rajasthan . Having considered all the aspects of the matter, I am satisfied that in the facts and circumstances as well as the legal position as discussed above, none of the legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners have been infringed by passing the order dated 26th May, 1987 by the respondents.
1