Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (2.88 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Ors vs Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr on 30 July, 2003
He has submitted that this Court in CWJC
No. 7095 of 2011 did not have the occasion to deal with the
validity of the decision of cancellation of the employment
notice No.1 itself to the extent it related to recruitment Centre,
Patna; the reasonableness and bonafide of the decision in the
light of Supreme Court judgments in case of ( 2003) 7 SCC
285 ( Union of India Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu) and
(2010) 7 SCC 678 ( East Coast Rly. Vs. Mahander Appa). He
has accordingly, submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, said order of this Court cannot be treated as ex
cathedra statement having the weight of authoritative
pronouncement.
East Coast Railway & Anr vs Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors on 7 July, 2010
The decision to cancel the entire process of
selection, for the reasons as noted above, was therefore an
arbitrary exercise of power, applying the principle laid down
by the Supreme Court in paragraph 23 in case of East Coast
Railway vs. Mahadeo Appa Rao ( supra).
Jodhey And Ors. vs State Through Ram Sahai on 16 January, 1952
"90. Now, it is well settled that
jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles
226 and 227 is discretionary and equitable.
Before more than half a century, the High Court
of Allahabad in the leading case of Jodhey Vs.
State observed:-
Manoj Kumar Choudhary &Amp; Ors vs The Union Of India &Amp; Ors on 10 August, 2010
42. After six years of commencement of selection
process, I , however, desist myself from issuing any direction
to the respondents compelling them to appoint these petitioners
against those posts on the basis of selection process which
came to be cancelled, though I have held that cancellation of
selection process was an arbitrary exercise of power. This I
am doing keeping in mind the nature of service where age of
the incumbent at the entry level for the purpose of their
35
training etc, matters a lot. Further, the direction of this Court
in case of Manoj Kumar Choudhary (supra) is also staring at
me. However, since I have held that fundamental rights of
these petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 have been breached,
because of non compliance of terms of the cancellation notice,
I am of the considered opinion that they will be required to be
compensated by the respondents. I would, therefore, direct the
respondents particularly respondent no.12 the Chief Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway,
(Respondent no.4) to pay to these petitioners a sum of Rs. 5
lakh each in order to compensate the infringement of their
fundamental rights by respondents within a period of three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order. If the said amount is not paid within the period
specified, it would incur interest at the rate of 12% per annum
after the said period of three months. If the amount is not paid
even within one year, it will carry interest 18% per annum
from the expiry of the said period of one year till the date of
actual payment.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
It was approved by this Court in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Gurnam
Kaur.14 The bench held that, „precedent sub-
silentio and without argument are of no
moment‟. The courts thus have taken recourse to
this principle for relieving from injustice
perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision
which is not express and is not founded on
reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue
cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a
binding effect as is contemplated by Article
B. Shama Rao vs The Union Territory Of Pondicherry on 20 February, 1967
In B. Shama Rao V. Union Territory
of Pondicherry‟15 it was observed,‟it is trite to
say that a decision is binding not because of its
conclusions but in regard to its ratio and the
principles, laid down therein‟. Any declaration
or conclusion arrived without application of
mind or preceded without any reason cannot be
deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a
general nature binding as a precedent, Restraint
in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability
and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable
limits is inimical to the growth of law."