Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.35 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan & Ors on 28 September, 2011
In Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & others
(2011) 12 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the
following observations:
Sri Satya Sai University Of Technology ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 14 August, 2023
(i) Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical
Sciences Sehore vs. Union of India and Ors.(14.08.2023-
DELHC): MANU/DE/5236/2023
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Rahul Yadav on 17 September, 2021
(ii) State of U.P Vs Rahul, Manu/UP/0197/2016
Vijender Singh (Inspr. Dp) No.D/3258 vs Commissioner Of Police on 8 December, 2011
19. Further, in Vijender Singh v. Commissioner of
Police in WP(C) No.3830/2019, the Hon'ble High Court
held as under:-
Cdr. Preeti Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 July, 2020
In fact, the case of Priti
Yadav (supra) also related to "cubital valgus‟. It is
18
Item Nos. 24, 25, 33, 36, 46, 49, 51 & 67 (C-3)
also to be noted that the specialists that the
petitioner had consulted had also found that the
petitioner suffered from "cubital valgus‟ and
therefore, the findings by the Medical Boards were
not wrong."
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
18. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic
adjustments and policy decisions which may be
necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar
19
Item Nos. 24, 25, 33, 36, 46, 49, 51 & 67 (C-3)
circumstances. While deciding the said case, the Court
referred to and relied upon its earlier judgments in State
of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal,
MANU/SC/0034/1986 and Sachidanand Pandey v.
State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0136/1987, in which
the Court held that judicial interference with policy
decision is permissible only if the decision is shown to be
patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr on 18 September, 2001
A similar
view has been reiterated in Union of India and Ors. V.
Dinesh Engineering Corporation and Anr.
MANU/SC/0575/2011.
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs Delhi Administration And Ors on 22 March, 2001
19. In the circumstances, the plea of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that Varicose Vein Rt. side, which had
been corrected by surgical procedure, should not be a
ground for declaring the petitioner to be medically unfit,
cannot be accepted. If the petitioner is medically unfit,
according to the uniform guidelines of medical
standards laid down by the respondents, the petitioner
is not entitled for any direction against the respondents
to enlist him to the post of Constable (GD) as has been
prayed for by the petitioner. Also there are no grounds
for quashing the review medical examination conducted
on 17th October, 2011 holding that the petitioner is
medically unfit on account of Varicose Vein Rt. side being
corrected by surgery. No cogent grounds have even
contended for directing the respondents to constitute a
special medical board for the medical examination to
ascertain the fitness of the petitioner. This has not been
disputed that the petitioner has Varicose Vein Rt. side
and that it's correction by surgical procedure cannot be
accepted, contrary to the yardstick laid down by the
respondents as the medical fitness standards."