Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 2 in Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr.A.Basheer vs Dr.Saiful Islam.A on 23 March, 2010
32.According to us, Annexure A6 is in no way repugnant to
Annexure A5 and therefore, the contention advanced in that
regard cannot be sustained under law. We find also force in the
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the 3rd
respondent that the petitioner never had consistent pleading and
moreover, there was not even sufficient pleading in the
application filed before the Tribunal as well as these Original
Petitions for the reason that the petitioner has not pleaded that
O.P.(KAT) Nos.10 and 33 of 2015 34
there was a post to which he sought appointment. Learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent has also brought our attention to a
Full Bench decision of this Court in Basheer v. Saiful Islam
reported in [2014(4) KLT 521(FB)] by which he canvassed the
proposition that the experience/qualification acquired should be
after appointment to the post concerned and not the whole
period of his service in a particular cadre or category. The said
judgment was rendered by this Court with reference to Rule
10AB of Part II KS & SSR wherein it was stipulated that unless
otherwise specified in the recruitment rules the qualification and
experience prescribed in the rules shall be gained after
acquiring basic educational qualification prescribed for the post.
Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999
So also the judgment in Biju v. University of Kerala
reported in [2008(1) KLT 707] was brought to our notice and
invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the said judgment
wherein judgment in Dr.Preeti Srivastava (supra) was referred
and held that the State has every power to prescribe a higher
qualification for appointments than the one prescribed by an
authority under a Central statute and held that the regulations of
the UGC fixes the benchmark qualification, but if the university
or the State Government feels that in the colleges under them, a
higher qualification should be prescribed, the same will not
amount to a legislation or a subordinate legislation, repugnant to
the UGC Act or the regulations framed thereunder. It was
further held that if some qualification more is prescribed, it
cannot be taken as contrary but only as complementary or
supplementary to the prescription already made by the Council.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The University Grants Commission Act, 1956
Sirajudheen vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 11 April, 2001
33. Taking into account the entire factual and legal
situations and also the principles laid down by the Apex Court as
O.P.(KAT) Nos.10 and 33 of 2015 35
well as this Court in the decisions referred above, we are of the
considered opinion that the order passed by the KAT does not
require any interference. It is also made clear that we have
considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Review
Petitions filed before the Administrative Tribunal also and still
we do not find any reason to arrive at a different conclusion than
the one arrived at by the Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner has
failed to point out any illegality, arbitrariness or other legal
infirmities so as to warrant our interference invoking our power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
V. Balasubramaniam Etc. Etc vs Tamil.Nadu Housing Board & Ors Etc. Etc on 21 September, 1987
28. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the
decision in V.Balasubramaniam v. T.N. Housing Board [AIR
1998 Supreme Court 6] in order to canvass the proposition that
any order issued by the State Government is a valid law as
provided under Article 162 of the Constitution and also to
establish that such orders have co-equal strength with any
legislation made by the State legislature unless the order is
repugnant to any legislation made by the State or the
Parliament.