Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.50 seconds)P.M. Latha And Another vs State Of Kerala And Others on 5 March, 2003
In P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala 2003 SCC (L&S) 339, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that prescription for particular qualification is a policy decision. Their Lordships observed as follows:
Dilip Kumar Ghosh & Ors vs Chairman & Ors on 12 September, 2005
It is seen that the Hon'ble High Court did not go into the recruitment rules and its mandatory requirement. Their Lordships also did not go to the details as to how the certificate obtained by the petitioner in that case could be considered equivalent to a diploma. Therefore, in our view, the said order in contempt petition should be applicable to the facts of that case and cannot be of any assistance to the respondents in this case. It is settled law that the principle of underlying decision is a binding precedent:
Mohd. Sartaj And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 January, 2006
In Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a candidate should possess the requisite qualification on the date of recruitment and not at a lower stage. Their Lordships held as follows:
Ashwani Kumar Singh vs U.P. Public Service Commission And Ors on 14 July, 2003
In Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors. 2004 SCC (L&S) 95, it was held that Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems or as persons of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear.
Article 301 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
...A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the Courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings.
1