Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.43 seconds)
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Class-Iv ... vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 26 April, 2013 cites

P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002

19. Coming to the further judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of P.U.Joshi (2 supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment that the matter relating to amendments made to Rules framed under Article 309, providing ratio in the feeder categories for the purpose of promotions, is a policy matter and it is the discretion of the State, and that the Tribunals cannot interfere with the same in exercise of power under Judicial review. But in the very same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such power of the State is subject to limitations and restrictions envisaged in the Constitution. Whether any particular Rule or amendment made to a particular Rule is irrational or illegal, is a matter that depends on facts of each case. No doubt, the Rules regulating the conditions of service are within the exclusive domain of the State under the proviso to Article 309, but even so, such rules have to be reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust, if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16. Coming to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the impugned amendments made vide G.O.Ms.No.738, dated 22.12.2008, are not reasonable and are grossly unjust and they do not survive the test of Articles 14 and 16, as much as the seniormost employees in A.P.Last Grade Service who are promoted to the post of Record Assistant, are unduly deprived of their chances for promotion to the further superior posts of Junior Assistant or its equivalent categories under A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 558 - D Raju - Full Document

L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997

Though it is the contention of the learned counsel that Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act empowers the Tribunal to test the validity of the orders passed by the Government and Governmental agencies alone, such a question is no more res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar V. Union of India and others3. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the Tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution, are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of Statutory provisions and Rules. Paragraphs 98 and 99 of the said Judgment, which are relevant for the purpose of present writ petitions, read as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 2564 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next