Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967
In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, (1968) 1
SCR 185 : (AIR 1967 SC 1889), it was held by this Court
that once appointed an employee has no vested right in
regard to the terms of service but acquires a status and,
therefore, the rights and obligations thereto are no longer
determined by consent of parties, but by statute or
statutory rules which may be framed and altered
unilaterally by the Government. ..........."
State Of U.P. & Ors vs J.P. Chaurasia & Ors on 27 September, 1988
14. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the
same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in
the performance. The quantity of work may be the same,
but quality may be different that cannot be determined by
relying upon assertions made by the parties in their
respective pleadings. The equivalence of posts or
equivalence of pay or the nature of duties or the similarity of
nature of duties must be left to the Executive Government /
rule making authority. It must be determined by the expert
bodies only. They would be the best judge to evaluate the
nature of duties and to equate the status of two posts. If
there is any such determination by an expert Body or
Commission or a Committee, the Court should normally
accept it. Reference may be made in this regard to State of
U.P. and Others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and others, 1989
SCC (L&S) 71) : (1989) 1 SCC 121.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
1