Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (2.14 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A.N.Sehgal And Ors vs Raje Ram Sheoran And Ors on 5 April, 1991
17. It appears that applicants are aggrieved by the opening given to
the open market candidates for being recruited as Postman. As per the
2010 rules 25% of the vacancy is kept aside for direct recruitment. The
philosophy and jurisprudential background of induction of direct recruits
has been explained by the Apex Court in A.N. Sehgal & Ors. v. Raje
Ram Sheoran & Ors. - 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 304. The Apex Court held as
under :
University Of Cochin, Rep. By ... vs N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Ors.University Of ... on 20 March, 1997
Similarly the
Apex Court has deprecated the practice of a candidate having participated
in a selection process and challenging the selection, finding that he is not
selected (see University of Cochin, represented by its Registrar,
University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & ors. - 1997 SCC L&S 976
& State of Jharkhand v. Ashok Kumar Dangi & Ors. - AIR 2011 SC
3182).
Govind Dattatray Kelkar & Ors vs Chief Controller Of Imports & Exports& ... on 1 November, 1966
In Govind Dattatray Kelkar v. Chief
Controller of Imports & Exports - AIR 1967 SC 839 it was held by the
Apex Court that where recruitment to a service or certain posts is from
different sources eg. Direct recruitment and promotion from lower post, it
would be for the Government to determine, having regard to the
requirement and needs of a particular post what ratio, as between the
different sources would be adequate and equitable. In the same case the
Apex Court held that if the ratio is so unreasonable as it amounts to a
discrimination, it is not possible for the Court to strike it down or suggest
a different ratio. Thus, it is clear that the fixation of quota for different
categories of persons for recruitment and the mode of recruitment to be
adopted is within the province of the executive. The Court or Tribunals
cannot step in to the shoes of the executive and to decide in any manner
such recruitments are to be regulated.
Chautala Workers Co-Operative ... vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 10 August, 1961
The 1989 Rules are not superseded by any subsequent
enactments. Hence it is the valid Rules in force. Annexure A-2 speaks
about the supersession of certain Rules which were already non existent.
The applicants in support of their contention cite Chautala ETC Transport
Society vs. State of Punjab AIR 1962 Punj.94-98 wherein it is held that
'There is presumption against implied repeal, a presumption classically
founded on the doctrine that the Parliament, when enacting a law is
presumed to keep in view the whole body of the existing law on the subject
and therefore, if a repeal of the existing law is intended the Parliament
would much rather expressly specify the offending provision than leave it to
the not too certain rule of implied repeal during the interpretative process by
the Courts.'
P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002
In P.V.Joshi vs. Accountant General (2003) 2 SCC 632 the Apex
Court clearly held that :
T.N. Electricity Board & Anr vs T.N.Electricity Board Thozhilalar ... on 14 February, 2008
10. The Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Electricity Board and
another vs. T.N.Electricity Board Thozhilaly in C.A.No.1279/2008 while
addressing the channelizing of promotion of Helpers in the category of
technical posts and not administrative posts stated that this is a policy
decision of the Board and it is the Board who has to decide as to who will
be suitable for the post and what will be the channel of promotion for such
post. It is not for the incumbent serving as a Helper to insist that the Board
should amend the Regulation in a manner which suits him.