Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.27 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Director Of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others on 13 May, 1998
In fact such a view has been
expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner
in Director of Education and another v. Pushpendra
Kumar and others (supra). It is also significant to
notice that on the date when the first application was
made by the petitioner on 2.6.1988, the petitioner was
a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is
conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be
reservation of a vacancy till such time as the
petitioner becomes a major after a number of years,
unless there is some specific provisions. The very
http://www.judis.nic.in
28
basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the
family gets immediate relief.”
Smt. Sushma Gosain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 August, 1989
40. In view of the above discussion, the
request of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate grounds, ought not to have been
entertained, as on the date of application, he was
minor, aged about 12 years. Reference can also be
made to a decision made in Sushma Gosain v. Union of
India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468.
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
The
Supreme Court held that the decision of the employer
was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case
and the same should not have been interfered with by
the High Court.?”
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 August, 2000
(iii) In Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar
and Others, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 192, the
petitioner was 10 years old, and his mother working
http://www.judis.nic.in
49
as a Excise Constable, died. He made an application
on 02.06.1988, soon after the death of his mother,
seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The
said application was rejected on 10.12.1996. Fresh
application subsequently made was also rejected on
21.04.1997. Being aggrieved by the same, he
preferred a writ petition before the High Court. A
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and
that the same was also confirmed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench. On appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, at paragraph No.3, held as follows:
)The Inspector General Of Prisions vs P.Marimuthu on 22 April, 2016
47.This apart, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
The Inspector General of Prisons vs. P.Marimuthu {2016 (5)
CTC 125}, in paragraphs 35 to 41, held as follows:
Smt. Phoolwati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 December, 1990
The above view was reiterated in Phoolwati v. Union of
India [1991 Supp (2) SCC 689] and Union of India v.
Bhagwan Singh [1995 (6) SCC 476].
Union Of India And Ors vs Bhagwan Singh on 30 August, 1995
(i) In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs.
Bhagwan Singh, reported in 1995(6) SCC 476, a
Senior Clerk in Railways died on September 12, 1972,
leaving behind his wife, two major sons and the
respondent (before the Hon'ble Supreme Court), who
was a minor, aged about 12 years. He passed Higher
Secondary Examination in 1983. Stating that he had
attained majority only in 1980/1981, he sought
appointment on compassionate grounds. The same
http://www.judis.nic.in
44
was rejected. The authorities took the view that the
application was beyond the period of limitation (five
years) and that the case of the respondent was not
covered by the relevant rules, at the time of the
demise of Ram Singh. Besides, there were two other
major sons of the deceased, who did not seek for
employment and that the family was not in financial
distress. The Central Administrative Tribunal, held
that the order of rejection as unjustified and directed
Union of India to reconsider the case of the
respondent therein, if he was otherwise qualified.
State Bank Of India & Anr vs Raj Kumar on 8 February, 2010
14. A scheme containing an in
pari materia clause, as is involved in this
http://www.judis.nic.in
36
case was considered by this Court in
State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar
(2010) 11 SCC 661. Clause 14 of the said
Scheme is verbatim to clause 14 of the
scheme involved herein, which reads as
under: