Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.92 seconds)
Prakashmani & Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 12 September, 2005 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr on 30 July, 2003

In the case of Union of India & Others vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Another (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has held that if it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of irregularities, or illegalities, there was no justification to deny appointment to those selected candidates whose selection was not found vitiated, in any manner. In the present case, the authorities have prepared a new select list on the basis of marks obtained in the selection process by weeding out the candidates like the petitioners, who have obtained the appointment on the basis of false caste certificates in the category of scheduled caste, not specified scheduled caste in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner No.4 was selected in the general category on the basis of merit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 268 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Tarun K. Singh And Ors. on 10 January, 2001

4. Mr. P. Diwaker, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. K. Shakeel, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had joined the services on 25.06.2005, pursuant to the appointment orders dated 20.06.2005. The petitioners have been continuing as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III ever since and as such the petitioners cannot be removed from the service without issuing show cause notice by affording an opportunity of hearing to comply with principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that since, the petitioners have been denied opportunity of hearing and as such the order dated 23.07.2005 cancelling the earlier select list dated 10.06.2005, on the basis of which, the petitioners were appointed, was illegal and deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners belong to scheduled caste and they have every right to avail benefits available to schedule caste candidates. The select list, on the basis of which, appointment orders were issued and the petitioners have joined the services, cannot be cancelled on the basis of enquiry held at the back of the petitioners. Learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol & Another vs. S.D. Halegkar & Others [(1993) 3 SCC 591], Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others [(1998) 8 SCC 1], Munna Roy vs. Union of India & Others [(2000) 9 SCC 283], Harbanslal Sahnia & Another vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others [(2003) 2 SCC 107], Union of India & Others vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Another [(2003) 7 SCC 285], Union of India & Others vs. Tarun K. Singh & Others [(2003) 11 SCC 768] and ABL International Ltd. & Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India & Others [(2004) 3 SCC 553].
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003

13. Case of ABL International Ltd. & Another (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, is on the issue where a writ petition involving various disputed question of facts may be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution or not. The same is not applicable in the present case, as disputed question of facts need to be examined by the authorities after examining all the relevant papers of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1154 - Full Document

U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S.Karamchari ... on 13 February, 2004

In the case of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Others (supra), cited by learned counsel for the respondents, the Supreme Court has held that the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the nature of a demurer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 195 - R Pal - Full Document

M.S. Mudhol And Anr. vs S.D. Halegkar And Ors. on 13 July, 1993

In the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol & Another (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the question was when the incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a long period of 9 years when the court was moved and 13 years have elapsed, the infraction of the statutory rules regarding the qualifications of the incumbent is also not that grave which should be taken into consideration. The Supreme Court accordingly approved the appointment and said that it was not necessary to go into the appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 122 - Full Document
1