Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)Satish Chandra And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 February, 1983
It appears from the order dated 15.3.1997 (Annex. 2) that the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the State Government under Section 300 of the Act A reading of the order does not show if the petitioner had brought to the notice of the revisional Authority the fact that he had challenged the order dt. 23.9.1995 by way of filing a writ petition before this court, whereby his appointment on the post of Assessor was cancelled. There is no reference of the High Court proceedings in the order either before the Single Bench or the Division Bench. The petitioner cited an unreported decision dated 3.2.1994 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19/1993 "Satish Chand v. State". On the basis of that order, the Hon'ble Deputy Minister Shri Mangla Ram Koli, held the order dt. 7.8.1995 appointing the petitioner as Assessor, as legal and valid. Accordingly, he set aside the order dated 23.9.1995. The Hon'ble Minister also accepted the resolution of the Municipal Board dated 7.8.1995 for creation of the post of Assessor. The said sanction was given for the period 7.8.1995 to 15.2.1997. It was also made clear that the resolution of the Board dt. 1.8.1995 promoting the petitioner as Assessor be treated as an appointment by way of direct recruitment. The Hon'ble Minister was further pleased to treat his appointment as from the date of his joining as Assessor i.e. 8.8.1995 and to give all consequential benefits and seniority.
M.S.Usmani & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 December, 1994
Chairman, Board Of Mining Examination ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977
4. In my view, the contention deserves to be rejected out rightly. The rules of natural justice are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be placed in legal strait jacket. There are situations, which do not call for application of the rules of natural justice. The Apex Court in the case of the Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Anr. v. Ramjee observed thus:
Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma And Ors vs Chancellor, Nagpur University And Ors on 21 August, 1990
In Dr. Suresh Chandra Verma and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Nagpur University AIR 1990 SC 2024, the services of the appellants were terminated by the Chancellor. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that termination was illegal as they were appointed in accordance with law. The decision was based on an earlier judgment of that court. Said earlier decision was subsequently over-ruled by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the law laid down by the Supreme Court became the law from the beginning replacing the law laid down by the High Court and the termination was, therefore, legal. The Apex Court held that in the facts of the case in view of the Supreme Court decision, the rule of audi alteram partem does not apply and there is no breach of principles of natural justice.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
H. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh vs The State Of Delhi(And Connected ... on 14 December, 1954
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 2.6.1999 passed by the respondent State of Rajasthan, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the post of L.D.C. as his promotion/appointment on the post of Assessor has been found to be illegal by the judgment of this court, rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3340/95, Inder Singh v. State.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ladu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 April, 1988
4. Ladu Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1990 (2) RLW 85
1