Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)The States Reorganisation Act, 1956
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sat Pal Sharma And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 22 March, 1968
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties could not convince us if there is a conflict between Sat Pal Sharma's case (supra) and Amar Chand's case (supra) and even if there was any, would it be necessary for us to resolve the conflict. Section 115(7) of the Act is the basis of the dispute and it reads as follows : -
The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966
Section 7 in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Haryana Etc. Etc vs Shamsher Jang Bahadur Etc. Etc on 19 April, 1972
14. It may be mentioned that this Court faced in one form or the other; many a writ petition after the decision of the Supreme Court aforementioned claiming benefit of those decisions. In the meantime, the composite State of Punjab approached the Central Government for the grant of retrospective approval to the Rules regarding qualifying test by clerks before being eligible for promotion to the post of assistant Obviously this approach was made in view of the provisions of Section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, as evidently the rules regarding qualifying test had been framed without such approval. Request of the State Government was declined A Full Bench of this Court then in Jagjit Rai Vohra v. State of Haryana, 1974 (2) S. L. R. 27, taking stock of the entire case law, authoritatively settled that the correct view seems to be that in the matter of granting or refusing relief to the writ-petitioners, the question of laches cannot be overlooked and each case will have to be examined to see whether a particular petitioner is or is not entitled to the relief available to him in view of the Supreme Court decision in Shamsher Jang Shukla's case (Supra). Further, it took the view that in giving relief to the petitioners laches could stand in their way unless they could satisfactorily explain the delay in moving the Court, Thus, individually for each writ-petitioner in these two cross-cases not only the delay part but other factors like vagueness in the petition etc., would have to be seen and these can be left to be decided by the Division Bench. Accordingly, we send the cases back to the Division Bench for disposal