Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ranjeet Singh vs The University Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 16 August, 1965
Learned counsel alleged violation of Ordinance 152 of the University and made reference of judgment of this court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. The University of Rajasthan, reported in 1966 RLW 275. The judgment aforesaid is in reference to Ordinance 152 of Rajasthan University.
Sanjay Lobo vs The University Of Rajasthan on 28 May, 1980
A further reference was given to the judgment in the case of Sanjay Labo Vs. The University of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1981 Rajasthan 69 and also a case reported in AIR 1981 Rajasthan 188, Suresh Kumar Bagaria Vs. University of Rajasthan & Anr. In those cases, similar issue was dealt with by this court.
Suresh Kumar Bagaria vs University Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 14 October, 1980
A further reference was given to the judgment in the case of Sanjay Labo Vs. The University of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1981 Rajasthan 69 and also a case reported in AIR 1981 Rajasthan 188, Suresh Kumar Bagaria Vs. University of Rajasthan & Anr. In those cases, similar issue was dealt with by this court.
K. Vijayalakshmi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 March, 1998
Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Vijayalakshmi Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1998) 4 SCC 37 and Roop Singh Negi vs Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. It was held that without availability of material, adverse decision should not be taken. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel Shri Ashok Gaur stated that if any of the petitioner indulged in unfair practice of cheating by impersonation in RPMT then this court can very well pass adverse order against them but it should be on a proper scrutiny and not in the manner, it has been done by the respondents by applying the inquiry report of P.K. Singh committee without further scrutiny.
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
Shri B.L. Sharma, Senior Counsel submitted that initiation of action by the respondents was in violation of Ordinance 152(3) of Rajasthan University Ordinance as adopted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. The order and the decision was taken by the Board of Management, though not competent. As per Ordinance, competence of such decision lies with the Syndicate thus action as well as impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. Reference of judgment in the case of Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 has been given to support the arguments. It is further stated that even the procedure provided under Ordinance 152(5)(vii) and (viii) apart from 152(J)(iv) was not followed. The respondents issued show cause notice and impugned order in violation of the provisions referred to above.
Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. vs Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti And Ors. on 21 January, 1997
Coming to the factual matrix, the statement of the counsel for the petitioners that thumb impression of the candidates were not taken by P.K. Singh committee has been contested. The inquiry was made by the committee headed by P.K. Singh. It not only compared thumb impression, but comparison of signature and hand writing was also made through Forensic Science Laboratory. To have a proper scrutiny, it was not only compared by manual process but through SIS thus it cannot be said to be a casual scrutiny of material. Once the report came adverse to the petitioners, there was no reason to continue them. The respondents after going through the report and with application of mind, passed the impugned order. The petitioners were served with the show cause notice followed by impugned order when no satisfactory reply was given. A reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. Vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 236 is given to support the arguments. Therein, report of Nayab Tehsildar, who was not even authorized to visit the examination centre, was relied and action of the examining body was upheld. In the instant case, P.K. Singh was appointed by this court itself thus placing reliance on the report cannot be said to be illegal.
Controller Of Examinations And Ors. vs G.S. Sunder And Anr. on 17 July, 1992
So far as allegations of the violation of principles of natural justice are concerned, it is submitted that thumb impression was obtained by P.K. Singh committee thus petitioners were party to the inquiry. They were then served with the show cause notice before cancellation of admission. In view of the above, impugned order has not been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. A reference of judgment reported in the case of Controller of Examinations & Ors. Vs. G.S. Sunder & Anr., reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 82 is given where the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the court should be slow to interfere in the matters of education.
Abhyudya Sanstha vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011
Learned counsel Shri R.A. Katta supported the arguments of Shri M.A. Khan. A reference of judgment in the case of Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 145 has been given. Therein, illegal and irregular appointments were not interfered in the name of equity jurisdiction. It was a case of mis-representation and the petitioners did not approach the court with clean hands.