Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr on 15 January, 2010
In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra
Mondal [(2010) (2) SCC 422], the Supreme Court,
relying upon its previous decisions in various cases
including the one in State of Bihar v. Upendra
Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 69], held that Article
14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be
enforced in a negative manner. The Court further
held that if an illegality or irregularity has been
committed in favour of any individual or a group of
individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a
judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of the higher or superior Court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing a wrong order. Interestingly, the decision
of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal
was subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan
Bhatt and the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is
also referred to in Kartick Chandra Mondal.”
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State Of Bihar vs Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors on 20 March, 2009
In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra
Mondal [(2010) (2) SCC 422], the Supreme Court,
relying upon its previous decisions in various cases
including the one in State of Bihar v. Upendra
Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 69], held that Article
14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be
enforced in a negative manner. The Court further
held that if an illegality or irregularity has been
committed in favour of any individual or a group of
individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a
judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of the higher or superior Court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for
passing a wrong order. Interestingly, the decision
of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal
was subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan
Bhatt and the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is
also referred to in Kartick Chandra Mondal.”
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Basawaraj vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 May, 2008
23.The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case
of Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer reported in [(2013) 14 SCC 81], held that “It is a
settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is
not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending
the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provisions
does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive
aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have
been granted some relief / benefits inadvertently or by mistake,
such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get
the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier
case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot
be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a
citizen or Court in a negative manner. If an illegality and
irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a
group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a
judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the
higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same
irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong
order”.
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
24.Let us consider the principles for grant of
regularisation and permanent absorption. The issues are no
more res integra as the Constitution Bench of the Honourable
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21980 of 2017
Supreme Court of India stated in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in
[(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The Constitution Bench in unequivocal terms
held that all appointments are to be made under the
Constitutional scheme and by providing equal opportunity to
all the candidates, who all are eligible and aspiring to secure
public employment through open competitive process. Any
selection conducted, if tainted with an allegation of corruption
or mala fides, such selection or appointments would not confer
any right on the candidates to seek regularisation or
permanent absorption.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
28.In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs.
Daya Lal and Others reported in [(2011) 2 SCC 429], the
Honourable Supreme Court of India has considered the scope
of regularisation of part time appointments and irregular
appointments, which are not regularly made in the sanctioned
post. “It is held that the High Courts, in exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions
for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance,
unless the employees claiming regularization has been
appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance
with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against
sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in
Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts
should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an
employee which would be violative of Constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance with
one of the elements in the process of selection which does not
go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door
entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme
and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be
regularized”.”
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
5.Regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be granted in
violation of the recruitment rules in force. Irregular or illegal appointments
cannot be regularised with retrospective effect, so as to grant service
benefits. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and
others [2006 (4) SCC Pg.1], has held that, irregular and illegal
appointments cannot be regularised in violation of the recruitment rules in
force.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988
35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the
Court lies only in its courage and ability to correct
its mistakes. Justice is more precious than
discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.21980 of 2017
Court highlighted in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak
[AIR 1988 SC 1531]. It was observed in the said
decision that "in rectifying an error, no personal
inhibitions should debar the Court because no
person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the
Court." The Supreme Court focused on the
elementary rule of justice that no party should
suffer due to the mistake of the Court. Therefore,
this Court should not feel shackled either by the
rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety,
when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been
done to the State (1) by writ petitions getting
allowed at the stage of admission and (2) by getting
those orders implemented under threat of contempt.
1