Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.28 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Cellular Operators Association Of ... vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India ... on 11 May, 2016
In Cellular Operators
Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India, (2016) 7 SCC 703, this Court referred to earlier
precedents, and held:
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 6 December, 1984
In
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India [(1985) 1 SCC 641, this Court
said that a piece of subordinate legislation does
not carry the same degree of immunity which is
enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent
legislature. A subordinate legislation may be
questioned under Article 14 on the ground that it
is unreasonable; `unreasonable not in the sense of
not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is
manifestly arbitrary'. Drawing a comparison
between the law in England and in India, the
Court further observed that in England the Judges
would say, `Parliament never intended the
authority to make such rules; they are
unreasonable and ultra vires '. In India,
arbitrariness is not a separate ground since it will
come within the embargo of Article 14 of the
Constitution. But subordinate legislation must be
so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in
conformity with the statute or that it offends
Article 14 of the Constitution."
M/S. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 15 December, 1995
In Khoday Distilleries
Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 304, this
Court held: (SCC p. 314, para 13)
"13. It is next submitted before us that the amended rules
are arbitrary, unreasonable and cause undue hardship
7 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 02:37:12 :::
CWP No. 716 of 2013 (O&M) -8-
and, therefore, violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Although the protection of Article 19(1)(g) may not be
available to the appellants, the rules must, undoubtedly,
satisfy the test of Article 14, which is a guarantee against
arbitrary action. However, one must bear in mind that
what is being challenged here under Article 14 is not
executive action but delegated legislation. The tests of
arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not
necessarily apply to delegated legislation. In order that
delegated legislation can be struck down, such
legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; a law which
could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an
authority delegated with the law-making power.
M/S Sharma Transport Rep.By Shri ... vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2001
44. Also, in Sharma Transport v. State of A.P. [(2002) 2
SCC 188], this Court held: (SCC pp. 203-04, para 25)
"25. ... The tests of arbitrary action applicable to
executive action do not necessarily apply to
delegated legislation. In order to strike down a
11 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 02:37:12 :::
CWP No. 716 of 2013 (O&M) -12-
delegated legislation as arbitrary it has to be
established that there is manifest arbitrariness. In
order to be described as arbitrary, it must be
shown that it was not reasonable and manifestly
arbitrary. The expression "arbitrarily" means: in
an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done
capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate
determining principle, not founded in the nature of
things, non-rational, not done or acting according
to reason or judgment, depending on the will
alone."
Chairman, Railway Board And Ors vs C.R. Rangadhamaiah And Ors. Etc. Etc on 25 July, 1997
16.1 From the perusal of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Yogendra Shrivastava(supra), T.R.Kapur(supra), Raman Lal Keshav
Lal Soni (supra), C.R.Rangadhamaiah (supra), Wing Commander J.
Kumar(supra), Roshan Lal Tandon(supra) and Krishna Kumar
(supra), it can be culled out that an employee may be appointed against a
contract, however, as soon as an employee is appointed, he acquires a status
and his right and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both
parties but by statute or rule made thereunder which may be altered
22 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 02:37:12 :::
CWP No. 716 of 2013 (O&M) -23-
unilaterally by the government. The right of seniority or promotion do not
accrue on the basis of rules and regulations applicable on the date of joining
of an employee whereas rules and regulations which are in force at the time
of consideration of promotion are applicable. The service conditions
pertaining to seniority are always liable to alteration. An employee who has
already been promoted can claim his right as accrued right whereas no
employee has right to claim his right as a vested or accrued right unless he
has already been promoted. The rules/regulations existing on the date of
consideration for promotion are applicable, thus, no right on the basis of
rules existing on the date of joining of an employee or arising of vacancy
accrues or can be claimed.
State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors on 26 September, 1973
"16. It is no doubt true that once a person joins service
18 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 02:37:12 :::
CWP No. 716 of 2013 (O&M) -19-
under the Government the relationship between him and
the Government is in the nature of status rather than
contractual and the terms of his service while he is in
employment are governed by statute or statutory rules,
which may be unilaterally altered without the consent of
the employees. It has been so held by this Court in
Roshan Lal Tandon (supra) and State of Jammu &
Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, [1974] 1 SCR at pp. 779,
Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union Of India on 14 August, 1967
16.1 From the perusal of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Yogendra Shrivastava(supra), T.R.Kapur(supra), Raman Lal Keshav
Lal Soni (supra), C.R.Rangadhamaiah (supra), Wing Commander J.
Kumar(supra), Roshan Lal Tandon(supra) and Krishna Kumar
(supra), it can be culled out that an employee may be appointed against a
contract, however, as soon as an employee is appointed, he acquires a status
and his right and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both
parties but by statute or rule made thereunder which may be altered
22 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 31-12-2022 02:37:12 :::
CWP No. 716 of 2013 (O&M) -23-
unilaterally by the government. The right of seniority or promotion do not
accrue on the basis of rules and regulations applicable on the date of joining
of an employee whereas rules and regulations which are in force at the time
of consideration of promotion are applicable. The service conditions
pertaining to seniority are always liable to alteration. An employee who has
already been promoted can claim his right as accrued right whereas no
employee has right to claim his right as a vested or accrued right unless he
has already been promoted. The rules/regulations existing on the date of
consideration for promotion are applicable, thus, no right on the basis of
rules existing on the date of joining of an employee or arising of vacancy
accrues or can be claimed.