Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
Union Of India vs Pushpa Rani & Ors on 29 July, 2008
13. In this regard, it is argued by learned State
counsel that as per the settled position of law, matters
relating to creation and abolition of posts, prescription
of qualification, minimum and maximum age, etc. are
within the exclusive domain of the employer. The same
being a policy decision of the Government may not be
interfered with by the Courts. The judgment of the
Supreme Court passed in Union of India v. Pushpa
Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242 has been cited in support of
such argument.
Kailash Chand Sharma Etc. Etc. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 30 July, 2002
15. This Court has given its anxious consideration
to the arguments advanced as above as also the cases
cited at the bar. This Court is of the considered view
that policy decisions are ordinarily not amenable to
judicial review but then if the same is subversive of the
doctrine of equality or suffers from the vice of
arbitrariness or violates the principles of equality
guaranteed under the Constitution, judicial review
would be permissible. The above principle was laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash
Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 SCC
562 and Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.,
(2001) 3 SCC 635. Therefore, to contend that a policy
decision of the Government cannot be touched at all
would not be correct. The correct view would be that in
appropriate cases judicial review would be permissible.
The policy decision of the Government cannot be
insulated in a manner so tight as to not be amenable
Page 20 of 28
to any kind of review. To the above extent, therefore,
the ground cited by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary
to reject the claim of the petitioners cannot be
countenanced in law.
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002
In
Page 22 of 28
Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4
SCC 638, the Supreme Court observed that:
Babita Satpathy & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 23 December, 2020
11. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned AGA would argue that
the selection process initiated pursuant to the
advertisement dated 26.12.2016 has been completed
since long and there was no provision for maintaining
a waiting list. Secondly, the reliance placed by the
petitioners on Babita Satpathy (supra) is
unacceptable for the reason that said judgment was
passed in personam and not in rem and moreover, the
said case related to a different advertisement. Mr.
Pattnaik further submits that a Coordinate Bench was
not inclined to accept the contention raised by one of
Page 16 of 28
the candidates, Banita Biswal and had dismissed the
writ application filed by her in WP (C) no.- 548 of 2017
challenging the very same advertisement involved in
the present cases. The order of the Single Judge is
therefore, binding on the petitioners. Mr. Pattnaik
further argues that relaxation of age is a policy
decision and the candidates have no right to question
the same. Allowing the claim of the petitioners would
violate the principles of equality as per Articles 14 and
16 and would also affect other candidates who could
not apply because of overage.
1