Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)
Chitra Devi @ Kumari Chitra Devi vs The State Of Bihar Through The Chief ... on 20 March, 2025 cites

Kailash Chand Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 30 July, 2002

-- Article 15 -- the word "residence" is omitted from the opening clause prohibiting discrimination on specified grounds. Clauses (3) and (4) of Article 16 dilute the rigour of clause (2) by (i) conferring an enabling power on Parliament to make a law prescribing the residential requirement within the State in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the State, and (ii) by enabling the State to make a provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The newly introduced clauses (4-A) and (4-B), apart from clause (5) of Article 16 are the other provisions by which the embargo laid down in Article 16(2) in somewhat absolute terms is lifted to meet certain specific situations with a view to promote the overall objective underlying the article. Here, we should make note of two Patna High Court CWJC No.3887 of 2025 dt.20-03-2025 25/33 things : firstly, discrimination only on the ground of residence (or place of birth) insofar as public employment is concerned, is prohibited; secondly, Parliament is empowered to make the law prescribing residential requirement within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be, in relation to a class or classes of employment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 650 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs P.B. Vijayakumar & Anr on 12 May, 1995

In this regard, I find gainful to refer to judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of "Government of A.P. v. P.B. Vijayakumar and another" (1995) 4 SCC 520. The mandate of Article 16 (2) Patna High Court CWJC No.3887 of 2025 dt.20-03-2025 21/33 of the Constitution of India refers to both "domicile" and "residence" apart from the "place of birth" and the Apex Court has clarified that the distinction has been made by the makers of the Constitution themselves. The expression "place of birth" is not synonyms to the expression 'domicile' and they reflect two different concepts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 176 - R M Sahai - Full Document

A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969

In A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India case reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262, it was held that the rules of natural justice operate in an area not covered by any law. They do not supplant the law of the land but supplement. it. In the present case, the letter of appointment gives information that the disciplinary action is required to be taken in accordance with CCA Rules, 2005.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1426 - Full Document

Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990

30. In Union of India etc. vs. Tulsiram Patel etc. case reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398, the Apex Court took the view that audi alteram partem rule can be excluded where a right to a prior notice and an opportunity of being heard, before an order is passed, would obstruct the taking of prompt action or where the nature of the action to be taken, its object and purpose as well as the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions warrant its exclusion. This legal proposition was further Patna High Court CWJC No.3887 of 2025 dt.20-03-2025 28/33 expanded in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs Delhi Transport Corporation Mazdoor Congress reported in (1991) Supp SCC 600, wherein the Apex Court held that rule of audi alteram partem can be excluded, where having regard to the nature of the action to be taken, its object and purpose and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions, fairness in action does not demand its application and even warrants its exclusion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 205 - Cited by 906 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next