Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.10 seconds)Harpal Singh Negi Alias Pal vs State Of H.P on 1 October, 2015
In present cases, parents of both the categories, i.e. serving in
Government/Public Sector and Private Sector, are similarly situated and
are falling in the same class of persons, who are compelled to serve outside
the State for want of provisions/opportunities of job in the State of
Himachal Pradesh, but, are bonafide Himachalis having roots in the State
of Himachal Pradesh and falls in one and the same category in whose
favour Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh Negi's case (supra)
has upheld the exemption. Therefore, to treat parents serving in
Government sector and in private/ unorganized sector a separate class, is
not based on intelligible differentia for the purpose of adjudication of issue
in question in present petitions.
Deepak Sibal & Ors vs Punjab University And Another on 14 February, 1989
34. The judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Sibal vs. Punjab
University & anr., (1989) 2 SCC 145, relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is distinguishable on facts because in that case the
admission to law courses in evening College of Punjab University was
denied to the employees of private/public establishments/ institutions on
the ground of production of bogus certificates by them, imparting legal
education to employees of government/semi-government institutions in
public interest, continuity of service for 3 years period of State and
elimination of wastage of seats. Such, however, is not the position in the
case in hand nor the withdrawal of concession to the category of the
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2018 23:02:57 :::HCHP
41
petitioners suffers from any illegality or arbitrariness. The ratio of the
judgment, as such, is of no help to the case of the petitioners.
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kathi Raning Rawat vs The State Of Saurashtra on 27 February, 1952
Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 (D); Lachmandas
Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 235, and Qasim
Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 156 and Habeeb Mohamad
v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 287. It is, therefore, not necessary
to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of
the article in question. It is now well-established that while article 14 forbids
class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes
of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification
two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different
bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the
like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of
classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well
established by the decisions of this Court that article 14 condemns
discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.
The contention now put forward as to the invalidity of the trial of the
appellants has, therefore to be tested in the light of the principles so laid
down in the decisions of this Court."
Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja vs State Of Bombay on 20 May, 1952
Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 (D); Lachmandas
Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 235, and Qasim
Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 156 and Habeeb Mohamad
v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 287. It is, therefore, not necessary
to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of
the article in question. It is now well-established that while article 14 forbids
class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes
of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification
two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different
bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the
like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of
classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well
established by the decisions of this Court that article 14 condemns
discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.
The contention now put forward as to the invalidity of the trial of the
appellants has, therefore to be tested in the light of the principles so laid
down in the decisions of this Court."
Syed Qasim Razvi vs The State Of Hyderabad And Others(And ... on 19 January, 1953
Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123 (D); Lachmandas
Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 235, and Qasim
Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 156 and Habeeb Mohamad
v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1953 SC 287. It is, therefore, not necessary
to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of
the article in question. It is now well-established that while article 14 forbids
class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes
of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification
two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different
bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the
like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of
classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well
established by the decisions of this Court that article 14 condemns
discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.
The contention now put forward as to the invalidity of the trial of the
appellants has, therefore to be tested in the light of the principles so laid
down in the decisions of this Court."
Naba Kishore Pati (Dead) And After Him ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 September, 1985
18. The Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Smt. Menaka Gandhi
vs. Union of India, 1978 SC 597, has also held as follows: