Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.86 seconds)Article 144 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dilip Kumar Garg & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 March, 2009
Further reliance
is placed on Shri Dilip Kumar Garg vs. State of U.P. &
Others, wherein it was held that administrative decisions
should not be interfered with unless there is a clear violation of
constitutional or statutory provisions.
Dirctor General Of Posts & Ors vs K.Chandrashekar Rao on 13 December, 2012
Similarly, in Director
General of Posts & Others vs. K. Chandrashekar Rao, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that policy decisions fall within the
domain of the State and ordinarily do not warrant judicial
interference. On these grounds alone, the present application
deserves to be dismissed.
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia And Ors on 17 December, 2003
5. Counsel for the applicants argue that their appointments
were made against sanctioned vacancies under the 5% quota,
after due relaxation of rules by the competent authority, and
cannot be termed illegal or adhoc. They emphasize that
similarly placed persons have not been subjected to such
adverse action, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. They also rely on principles of estoppel,
legitimate expectation, and settled law laid down in cases such
as Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil Vs Jagdishbhai Kamalia
& Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 65, Amarendra Kumar Mahapatra &
Ors. Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC L&S 54, and
Bhagwati Prasad & Ors. Vs Bharat Mineral Corporation, to
contend that long continuation in service establishes the
substantive nature of appointment and entitles them to
regularization.
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
In this regard, reliance is placed upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "State of Karnataka
Vs. Uma Devi reported as 2006 (4) SCC 1", wherein it has been
held as under in paras 53 and 54 of the judgment:
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid binding precedent,
the applicants have no right either to continue on the post or to
seek regularization, and even the judgments relied upon by
them have no binding effect in view of the law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The said principle has been reiterated and
explained in subsequent judgments including "Secretary, State
of Karnataka Vs Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, paras 43-50",
"Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Corporation Vs Workers,
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Corporation (2007) 1 SCC
408, paras 13-15, 23-26, 28, 30, 31 & 44", "Surinder Prasad
Tiwari Vs U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors
(2006) 7 SCC 684, para 38", "Official Liquidator Vs Daya
Nand (2008) 10 SCC 1, paras 49-50" and "Punjab Water
Supply and Sewage Board Vs Ranjodh Singh & Ors (2007) 2
SCC 491, paras 3-5, 10, 12, 14-16, 18".
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Workman, Indian Drugs & ... on 16 November, 2006
It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid binding precedent,
the applicants have no right either to continue on the post or to
seek regularization, and even the judgments relied upon by
them have no binding effect in view of the law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The said principle has been reiterated and
explained in subsequent judgments including "Secretary, State
of Karnataka Vs Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, paras 43-50",
"Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Corporation Vs Workers,
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Corporation (2007) 1 SCC
408, paras 13-15, 23-26, 28, 30, 31 & 44", "Surinder Prasad
Tiwari Vs U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors
(2006) 7 SCC 684, para 38", "Official Liquidator Vs Daya
Nand (2008) 10 SCC 1, paras 49-50" and "Punjab Water
Supply and Sewage Board Vs Ranjodh Singh & Ors (2007) 2
SCC 491, paras 3-5, 10, 12, 14-16, 18".