Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Punjab Province vs Daulat Singh on 30 January, 1946
The object or motive attributed by the learned Attorney-General to the impugned order is undoubtedly a laudable one but its validity has to be judged by the method of its operation and its effect on the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 29(2). A similar question of construction arose in the case of -Punjab Province v. Daulat Sing A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 66(J).
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bombay vs Bombay Education Society And ... on 26 May, 1954
The Supreme Court adopted this construction in State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society with reference to Article 29(2) of the Constitution. On behalf of the Court S.R. Das, J., said :
Basheshar Nath vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Delhi & ... on 19 November, 1958
It is further brought to my notice that the interim order passed by this Court as aforesaid still continues and that, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner in any manner aquiesced with Ext. P4 or P7 orders. It is further contended that at any rate in so far as the petitioner's case is that she has been discriminated against solely on the basis of sex, and that her right guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution has been interfered with, respondents cannot be heard to say that on account of the acquiescence she cannot approach this Court to redress her grievances. The submission is that the fundamental rights cannot be bartered away and in support thereof the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred me to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Behram Khwshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (Paragraph 52 thereof), in In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 956 at page 981 and in Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and Anr. (paragraph 14 at page 158 and paragraph 32 at page 163). It appears to me that the submissions as aforesaid are wellfounded. I am also not prepared to accept the contention that the petitioner in any manner acquiesced with Exts. P4 and P7 orders.
Radha Charan Patnaik vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 28 February, 1969
In Radha Charan Patnaik v. State of Orissa and Anr. the question arose as regards as provision to the effect that " no married woman shall be entitled as of right to be appointed to the service and where a woman appointed to the service subsequently marries, the State Government may, if the maintenance of the efficiency of the service so requires, call upon her to resign" and the Court examined the argument to the effect that the classification is not solely on the basis of sex but on the basis of sex coupled with the factum of marriage. Considering the contention as aforesaid that Court said :
1