Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.77 seconds)
Syed Tariq Ahmad & Ors vs . Ut Of J&K And Ors on 30 August, 2025 cites

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

9 With regard to question No. 1, the Tribunal, placing reliance on Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261,came to the conclusion that the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a legislation enacted under Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India, is competent to hear even those matters where the constitutional validity of statutory provisions is challenged. The Tribunal, however, cannot adjudicate 7 2025:JKLHC-SGR:244-DB upon the constitutional validity of the very legislation under which it has been constituted. Regarding question No.(ii), the Tribunal, after referring to the case law on Article 14 of the Constitution of India, came to the conclusion that the persons appointed on ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis against clear vacancies, and those appointed purely on academic arrangement basis for a fixed term, form two distinct classes; and that such classification has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 2010, namely, to provide regularization to ad hoc, contractual and consolidated employees working against clear vacancies for a period of seven years and more. It is in these premises that the challenge to the vires of Section 3 (b) of the Act of 2010 was rejected by the Tribunal and, consequently, all the petitions, in terms of the common judgment impugned in these petitions, came to be dismissed. 10 The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that though the engagement of the petitioners was designated as „contractual‟ on academic arrangement basis, but, in essence, it was an engagement on ad hoc basis and, therefore, the respondents could not have discriminated against them vis-à-vis those who were similarly appointed, and described as „contractual‟, „ad hoc‟ or „consolidated‟. It is submitted that the Tribunal also failed to appreciate that the petitioners were similarly situate with those engaged on ad hoc, contractual and consolidated basis, and, therefore, formed a single class. Any further classification only on the basis of nomenclature was thus in direct conflict with the right of equality and equal protection of laws envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 2564 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar on 11 January, 1952

25 A Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court rendered by seven Judges in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75, is a locus classicus on the permissibility of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was authoritatively held therein that although Article 14 does not permit class legislation, yet reasonable classification can be made by the State without offending the mandate of equality enshrined in Article
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 600 - Full Document
1   2 Next