Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.97 seconds)The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
Section 4A in The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Kazilhendup Dorji vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 29 March, 1994
" 30. Referring to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI, reported in 1994
Supp (2) SCC 116, the amicus submitted that in view
of the seriousness of the allegations, viz. alleged
corrupt practices of a Chief Minister, and the need to
unearth the truth of such allegations, the Court held
that the petitioner in the public interest litigation
ought not to be non-suited on the ground of laches.
Paragraph 15 was placed, which reads as under:
Section 5 in The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Food Corp.Of India & Ors vs Ashis Kumar Ganguly & Ors on 12 May, 2009
(38) There is no dispute over the above proposition,
however, as held in the judgment in the case of Food
Corporation of India vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly (supra), delay
and/or latches on the part of a Government servant may deprive
him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of
the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature,
be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those
who are alert and vigilant. In the present matter, the Respondent
No. 7 filed the Complaint after 21 years and the Authorities
acted on the basis of it without verifying the actual record before
the Deputy Director of Education while granting approval in
2003.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.R. Mudgal & Ors vs R.P. Singh & Ors on 30 September, 1986
also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of K.R. Mudgal
(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "satisfactory
service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of
uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the
writ petitions filed after several years. It is essential that any one
who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should
approach the Court as early as possible, as otherwise in addition
to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the
Government servants there would also be administrative
complications and difficulties. In the said case even after nearly
32 years the dispute regarding the appointment of some of the
respondents to the writ petition is still lingering in this Court. It
is held that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the
preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the
writ petition on the ground of laches."
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others on 23 February, 2007
(35) Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 also relied
on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra).
This judgment is also of no help to the Respondent No. 7, on the
same grounds as stated above. As such, we do no see any
illegality or irregularity in the appointment orders issued in
favour of the Petitioners. Due procedure is followed and there
are no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against the
Petitioners.