Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Janam Singh vs State Of U.P on 25 January, 1994
7. In reply to the submission that the writ application is not maintainable in absence of the 234 persons, who were appointed by respondent No.2, learned Counsel for the petitioners, firstly, submitted that this writ application has been filed adding respondent Nos. 6 to 17 in the representative capacity and, as such, it is not necessary to implead all those persons, who have been illegally appointed, as party-respondents in this writ application. Secondly, it was submitted that the petitioners have not sought any relief against any individual, but they have sought intervention of this Court to declare the actions of the respondent No.2, namely, the Speaker, as arbitrary and without jurisdiction and, as such, the petitioners are not required to implead all the persons, who have been appointed even though they may be affected by the result of this writ application. He submitted that if anyone is going to be affected by the verdict of this Court, he or they can challenge the verdict of this Court in an appropriate proceeding. learned Counsel, in support of his contention, relief upon the decision in Ram Janam Singh (supra) and Prabodh Verma and Ors. etc. etc. (supra). It is true that all the persons, who have been appointed, have not been made party-respondents in this writ application because of the reasons, firstly, that their whereabouts and parentage are not known to the petitioners, as they have not been appointed through the prescribed procedure and, secondly, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not either necessary for the petitioners to implead those persons as party-respondents, who have been appointed during the aforesaid period by respondent No.2. Since, however, the matter has been brought to the notice of this Court, this Court irrespective to the fact whether those appointees have been impleaded as party-respondents in this writ application or not, can very well examine the propriety of the orders making appointments on different posts in Government/public office.
Vijay Kumar Mishra And Brij Bihar Kuwar ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 February, 1988
Appointments in such a large scale, in my view, cannot be held to have been made to meet the emergent situation. Obviously, therefore, the connection of the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is no acceptable that the appointments were made in order to ensure smooth functioning of he Assembly in absence of respondent-No. 2, the Speaker. this Court, while dealing with such a question, has held in the case of Bijay Kumar (supra) as follows:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. And Vice ... on 9 December, 1986
In an almost identical situation, in Shivaji Rao Nilangekar Patil's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in Paragraph 36 of the judgment as follows:
1