Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Mubeena A.C Aged 30 Years vs The Administrator on 17 August, 2016 cites

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors on 16 August, 2011

8. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that file noting are not records nor are the 'file noting'' admissible in evidence as held by the apex court in State of Uttaranchal and another Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and others b� (2011) 8 SCC 670. Following the earlier decision on the point the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid decision:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 364 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

The State Of Punjab vs Sodhi Sukhdev Singh on 15 November, 1960

'24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by he particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, can such noting be treated as a decision of the government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government, unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. (See State of Punjab V. Sodhi Sukhdev Sigh -AIR 1961 SC 493, Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab b� AIR 1963 SC 395, State of Bihar Vs. Kripalu Shankar b� (1987) 3 SCC 34, Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Shri Kishan b� (1993) 2 SCC 84, Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DA - (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Shanti Sports Club Vs. Union of India b� (2009) 15 SCC 705.)'
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 371 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962

'24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by he particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, can such noting be treated as a decision of the government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government, unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. (See State of Punjab V. Sodhi Sukhdev Sigh -AIR 1961 SC 493, Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab b� AIR 1963 SC 395, State of Bihar Vs. Kripalu Shankar b� (1987) 3 SCC 34, Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Shri Kishan b� (1993) 2 SCC 84, Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DA - (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Shanti Sports Club Vs. Union of India b� (2009) 15 SCC 705.)'
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 393 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document

Rajasthan Housing Board And Ors. Etc. ... vs Kishan And Ors. Etc. Etc on 27 January, 1993

'24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by he particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, can such noting be treated as a decision of the government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government, unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. (See State of Punjab V. Sodhi Sukhdev Sigh -AIR 1961 SC 493, Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab b� AIR 1963 SC 395, State of Bihar Vs. Kripalu Shankar b� (1987) 3 SCC 34, Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Shri Kishan b� (1993) 2 SCC 84, Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DA - (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Shanti Sports Club Vs. Union of India b� (2009) 15 SCC 705.)'
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 126 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Shanti Sports Club & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 August, 2009

'24. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by he particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, can such noting be treated as a decision of the government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government, unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. (See State of Punjab V. Sodhi Sukhdev Sigh -AIR 1961 SC 493, Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab b� AIR 1963 SC 395, State of Bihar Vs. Kripalu Shankar b� (1987) 3 SCC 34, Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Shri Kishan b� (1993) 2 SCC 84, Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. DA - (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Shanti Sports Club Vs. Union of India b� (2009) 15 SCC 705.)'
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 354 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Arup Das & Ors vs State Of Assam & Ors on 27 January, 2012

'17. It is well established that an authority cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the number of posts advertised, even if there were large number of posts available than those advertised. The principle behind the said decision is that if that as allowed to be done, such action would be entirely arbitrary and violative of Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India since other candidates who had chosen not to apply for the vacant posts which were being sought to be filled could have also applied if they had known that other vacancies would also be under consideration for being filled up.' It is not the function of the Tribunals to direct the respondents to create posts so as to enable the applicants to get appointment. First of all no order has been issued by the department concerned for creating posts. Without creating posts no claim can be made by the applicants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 68 - A Kabir - Full Document
1