Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 69 (1.05 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government of India Act, 1935
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 107 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra Etc vs The Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. ... on 29 October, 1976
In State of Maharashtra v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the substitution by legislative process, wherein the whole legislative process termed "substitution" was proved to be abortive inasmuch as the amending Act did not receive the assent of the Governor General under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and was thus void and in operative. In that factual background of the case Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere use of word substituted does not ipso facto or automatically repeal a provision until the provision which is to take its place is constitutionally permissible and legally effective. Thus this decision is also quite distinguishable for the simple reason that amending Act could not receive the assent of the Governor general under Section 107 of the Government of India Act and for that reason could not become operative, therefore, it was held that substitution was not effected at all. Whereas in instant case even if assuming for the sake of argument that the aforesaid proposition is applicable in the present facts of the case even then since the substituted provisions have come into operation on the date of commencement of the aforesaid Amendments as the substituting Rule and provisions have been validly enacted with all required formalities and were legally made effective but for the decision of the court referred above, they were declared ultra-vires. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid principle also the Rules 5 and 6 of old 1936 Rules as stood while amendments 1969, 1987 and 1997 were effected could not revive automatically on declaration of aforesaid amended/substituted Rules ultra-vires of Part III of Constitution without their reenactment afresh....
Firm A. T. B. Mehtabmajid And Co vs State Of Madras And Another on 22 November, 1962
155. However, even if the qualifying examination by written test would have been held regularly in past, it cannot be said that requisite number of candidates from amongst diploma holders would not have passed said qualifying examination to become eligible to be considered for promotion and on account of their being unsuccessful in such qualifying examination the chances of promotion of the petitioners, who are degree holders would have been better in comparison to present criterion of holding qualifying examination by interview alone. Even in such extreme hypothesis, it can not be said that petitioners' any vested right accrued in earlier existing procedure for determination of eligibility of diploma holder junior engineers/computers forming part of their service conditions are sought to be taken away, whereby they are adversely affected. It is not their case that by Government Order dated 11.2.2003, they have been excluded altogether from zone of consideration and have been made ineligible for consideration for promotion despite their being senior to diploma holder junior engineers/computers, thus, we are of the considered opinion that by the Government Order dated 11.2.2003 no vested right of petitioners forming part of their service conditions are sought to be taken away whereby they are adversely affected in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Bnkar's case (supra), G.B. Purohit's case (supra), Mohd. Shujat Ali's case (supra), T.R. Kapoor's case (supra), Chandra Kant Anant Kulkarni's case (supra) and S.L. Dutta's case (supra). Even assuming for the sake of hypothesis, on account of Government Order dated 11.2.2003, the petitioners' accelerated chances of promotion would be reduced in comparison of earlier existing situation and now they have to compete with the diploma holders on same and equal footing even then in view of aforesaid settled legal position they can hardly have any legitimate and genuine grievance against said Government Order, and as such they have hardly any good ground to challenge the same.