Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Kailash Nath Shukla Son Of Late Sant ... vs The Regional Assistant Director ... on 23 December, 2005 cites

Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994

17. Thus from a close analysis of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that if the intention of rule making authority is to give the Dying in Harness Rues an overriding effect over all other recruitment rules or regulation in all respect then it would have been unnecessary for it to provide for relaxation of the recruitment rules only in respect of maximum age limit, educational qualification and/or any procedural requirement of recruitment in favour of certain category of persons including dependents of Board's servants Dying in Harness in accordance with general rules or Government orders in this behalf in force at the time of recruitment. Thus in my opinion the relaxation of rules of recruitment is permissible only to the extent indicated in Rule-10 of the said rules. As held earlier since Rule 5 of rules provides source of recruitment and is substantive and fundamental in nature, therefore, does not cover under Rule 10 of the rules, Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that Rule-5(b)(iii) and (iv) which provides that the post of Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress are liable to be filled up by promotion according to Rule-18 of rules, cannot be relaxed under Rule-10 of the rules, making it available for direct recruitment. The proviso appended to Rule-5(b) of the rules no doubt carves out exception to the main provisions contained in the enacting part of the rule but it would apply only in situation envisaged therein and in no other situation. Therefore, the same cannot be utilized for different purpose that is for relaxation of rules regarding the source of recruitment, which is fundamental and substantive in nature for the purpose of making it available for Dying in Harness Rules. Such interpretation would lead anomalous result and rights of persons entitled for promotion would be unduly impaired and prejudiced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2647 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Hira Man vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 8 August, 1997

In Hira Man v. State of Uttar Pradesh Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the scope of Rules 4 and 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 has held that overriding effect which is given to the rules in respect of procedure for selection for appointment on the post for which the dependent makes an application should not be read in isolations but it should be read in context of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules, which deals with the situations under which Rules of Recruitment is relaxed. The Apex Court has rejected the claim of compassionate appointment of respondent No. 4 even on class III posts falling in the quota of promotion of appellant therein. For ready reference para 9 of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965

21. That apart, it is also necessary to point out that the petitioner has secured his illegal appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Master in Senior Basic School on 13.1.1996 contrary to the rules of recruitment, which was rectified subsequently on 16.3.1996 by District Basic Education Officer, the same view was reiterated again by District Basic Education Officer vide impugned order dated 27.1.1997, thus in my considered opinion in such situation writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the petitioner to restore an illegal order of District Basic Education Officer dated 13.1.1996 passed in his favour. The aforesaid view also finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 537 - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004

The aforesaid decision is being consistently followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthi . Therefore in view of aforesaid settled legal position and further since the petitioner has already been enjoying the benefit of compassionate employment on the post of Assistant Master in Primary School of the Board by virtue of his such appointment w.e.f. 7.3.1987, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 27.1.1997.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 1765 - H K Sema - Full Document

Canara Bank vs V.K. Awasthy on 31 March, 2005

The aforesaid decision is being consistently followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthi . Therefore in view of aforesaid settled legal position and further since the petitioner has already been enjoying the benefit of compassionate employment on the post of Assistant Master in Primary School of the Board by virtue of his such appointment w.e.f. 7.3.1987, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 27.1.1997.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 353 - A Pasayat - Full Document

S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985

In this connection it would be useful to refer a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabhiraman , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with in detail the nature, object and purpose of the proviso appended to a statute by making references of several juristic opinions and law laid down earlier by the Apex Court in para 26 to 43 of the decision. The observations made by Supreme Court in para 26, 42 and 43 of the decision are as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 588 - S M Ali - Full Document
1