Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N. C. Shinghal vs Union Of India on 19 March, 1980
In Dr. Singhal's case the Court observed :
Ismail Abdul Latif Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 29 February, 1996
10. The learned Counsel for the applicant places reliance upon Ismail Abdul Latif Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1996(2) SLR 42, in support of his contention. In this case the appellant an Excise Inspector was interviewed but he was not promoted on the ground that his chest measurement was less than the standard measurement. It was found that two other persons were promoted despite their being below the required height. The Court therefore, held that the same benefit has to be made available to the appellant. We are of the view that this judgment has no assistance to the applicant. In the instant case the respondents have given the explanation in what circumstances the post of Research Officer (Plant Introduction) has been revived and we are satisfied that the same circumstances were not available with regard to the post of Research Officer (Chemistry).
N.K. Mohapatra vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 3 May, 1994
In B.K. Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, 1980(8) SLR 88, the question as to giving the benefit of the entire past service rendered by one group of Government servants has been considered. As the Court found that by working the scheme one group of Teachers of the Ex-District Board High Schools were found benefitted by the length of continuous service in the respective cadre for the purpose of reckoning seniority whereas the other group of Teachers in the Government schools were not given the same benefit. The Court held that the scheme formulated by the Government was irrational. The facts are entirely different and has no bearing on the question of revival of a post.
State Of Mysore And Anr vs H. Srinivasamurthy on 29 January, 1976
12. Lastly the learned Counsel relies upon State of Mysore and another v. H. Srinivasmurthy, AIR 1976SC 1104. In this case the Court found that the petitioner there in had been discriminated against since others who were similarly situated were absorbed in the Polytechnics from the date they initially joined duties and that there was no justification to depart from the said principle. We are of the view that this case does not help the applicant, either.
1