Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Sri Rupan Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 20 February, 2018 cites

Keshav Chandra Joshi And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 November, 1990

WP(C) 175 of 2015 "The Tribunal held that the word "may" used in this Rule is directory but in our considered view, to give such a meaning would render the very object of consultation with the MPSC wherever necessary nugatory. It would give unbridled power to the Government to dispense with the consultation with MPSC which may result into arbitrary exercise of the powers by the authority. This could never be the object of Rule 4-A. In our considered view, the word "may" must mean "shall" and this is also obvious from the correspondence between the State Government and MPSC. The Government of Maharashtra wanted to relax the quota rule but MPSC was not agreeable and ultimately it relented to the request of the Government of Maharashtra and suggested amended Rule 4-A. This suggestion was accepted and accordingly the amendment was inserted in the Rules. We also find support to our view from the decision of the apex court in Keshav Chandra Joshi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. In that decision, [Keshav Chandra Joshi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.] the apex court was making out interpretation of Rule 27 of U.P. Forest Service Rules, 1952 and the said rule is similar to Rule 4-A. While construing the word "may" used in Rule 27, the apex court held that the word "may" has to be read as "shall" and, therefore, consultation is mandatory. It must, therefore, follow that MPSC gave its approval to the relaxation vide its letter dated 28.03.1989 but by that time, several appointments of the departmental candidates on similar terms in the cadre of Sales Tax Officers Class-I were made exceeding the quota rule. As far as the regularization process is concerned, it is quite clear from the letter dated 28.03.1989 by MPSC to the Secretary, Finance Department calling upon the latter to furnish the details about the availability of posts yearwise with confidential records thereof in order to enable the Commission to take the decision on the pending select list and to regularize the promotions of the Sales Tax Officers Class-I from 1982 to 31.12.1986."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 263 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957

But in State of U.P. vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, reported in AIR 1957 SC 912, the apex court has held that such provisions do not confer any rights on the public servant in the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or for not furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by the UPSC or to get the cause of action challenging the action in a court of law inasmuch as the provision of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 553 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs S.K.Kapoor on 16 March, 2011

In Union of India and others vs. S.K. Kapoor, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 the apex court had accepted the ratio laid down in the case of T.V. Patel (supra) in so far as the interpretation of Article 320(3) (c) is concerned and, in that context, it has been observed that the provisions contained in the said Article 320(3) (c) of the Constitution are mandatory. While distinguishing certain aspects, the apex court had observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 532 - Full Document
1