Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)

Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Bhanu Lodh & Ors on 24 February, 2005

37. It is pertinent to note that special subjects are subjects pertaining to extra curricular activities. Teachers teaching extra curricular activities must have a certain limit because, there are other more important subjects which are to be taught to the students. How many teachers are required to be appointed to teach different subjects is a matter of discretion of the appointing authority. Of course, if the authority is acting in an arbitrary manner, the Court can examine the decision. In the instant case, it is not shown as to how the decisions taken by the District Education Committee are improper, illegal or devoid of merits. We are sure that the government must have provided some guideline to the Education Committees or there must be some common principle on basis of which the committees would be ascertaining requirement of such special subject teachers. If the committees headed by responsible government Officers and consisting of some local representatives of people determine the actual requirement of teachers correctly, in our opinion, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the decision of the committee. Looking to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Banu Lodh (supra), it is always for the appointing authority to decide whether all the posts should be filled up or kept vacant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 176 - Full Document

State Of Orissa And Ors vs Bhikari Charan Khuntia And Ors. Etc on 22 September, 2003

16. So as to substantiate his arguments, he has relied upon the judgement delivered in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia and Ors. which lays down law to the effect that the judiciary should not give directions to the government to fill up all the posts. Even if some posts are vacant, the government authorities cannot be constrained to fill up the vacant posts and the candidates have no right to be appointed even if there are vacant posts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 46 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

18. Thereafter, he has submitted that in the case of Secretary, State Of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. , it has been held that the Court should not interfere when the matter pertains to economic or financial arrangement of the affairs of the State and the Court should not do something, which would increase financial burden on the State exchequer.

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

27. Senior advocate Shri Yatin Oza appearing for the applicants of Civil Application No. 2278/2007, who had prayed for being joined as respondents in this appeal has adopted the arguments advanced by learned advocate Shri Pujara, but he has added that looking to the law laid down by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1265/1999 and other allied matters, the appeal ought not to have been entertained at all because the order passed by the learned Single Judge was not complied with. According to him, first of all the government must comply with the directions given by the learned Single Judge and then only the appeal should have been taken up for final hearing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 650 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1