Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998
25. Notwithstanding, that the Cabinet Decision was not interfered by the
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 1621/2003 and directed to be implemented
by this Court judgement passed in W.P. (C) No. 5417/2014, even otherwise,
it is settled law that a Cabinet Decisions are not lightly interfered with by the
Constitutional Court in the absence there being any material brought to the
notice of the Court while assailing the said decision as being
1
K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA W.P.(C) 1976/2015 and connected items Page 17 of 21
Signing Date:22.02.2024
11:22:27
unconstitutional or arbitrary in nature or contrary to law. In the facts of this
case, there is no such challenge laid to the Cabinet Decision and the basis of
resisting the takeover by the Petitioners and the Delhi University is merely
the apprehension of conflict of promotions, seniority upon merger of the
employees of the College and the Hospital and related service condition. In
the opinion of this Court, the said grounds taken in the petition and argued
before this Court cannot be the basis for interference of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Cabinet Decision dated 25th
August, 2005.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr on 10 March, 2008
In the facts of this case, the material on record shows that there
was a detailed consideration by Respondent No. 2, MoHFW, Respondent
No. 1 MHRD and GNCTD on the issue at hand and it was thereafter, placed
with a detailed note before the Cabinet of Union of India for considering the
2
State of U.P. v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (2008) 5 SCC 550; State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik
Prishikshan Kendra Sangh (2011) 6 SCC 597; Anshul Gupta vs Prime Minister Office passed in W.P (C)
No. 635/2023 decided on 01.09.2023; W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18
SCC 39.
State Of H.P.& Ors vs H.P.Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan ... on 20 April, 2011
In the facts of this case, the material on record shows that there
was a detailed consideration by Respondent No. 2, MoHFW, Respondent
No. 1 MHRD and GNCTD on the issue at hand and it was thereafter, placed
with a detailed note before the Cabinet of Union of India for considering the
2
State of U.P. v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (2008) 5 SCC 550; State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik
Prishikshan Kendra Sangh (2011) 6 SCC 597; Anshul Gupta vs Prime Minister Office passed in W.P (C)
No. 635/2023 decided on 01.09.2023; W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18
SCC 39.
West Bengal Central School Service ... vs Abdul Halim . on 24 July, 2019
In the facts of this case, the material on record shows that there
was a detailed consideration by Respondent No. 2, MoHFW, Respondent
No. 1 MHRD and GNCTD on the issue at hand and it was thereafter, placed
with a detailed note before the Cabinet of Union of India for considering the
2
State of U.P. v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (2008) 5 SCC 550; State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik
Prishikshan Kendra Sangh (2011) 6 SCC 597; Anshul Gupta vs Prime Minister Office passed in W.P (C)
No. 635/2023 decided on 01.09.2023; W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18
SCC 39.
Supreme Court Young Advocates Forum vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Petitioners filed the present petition in
the year 2016 opposing the takeover of UCMS by GNCTD. The grounds of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA W.P.(C) 1976/2015 and connected items Page 5 of 21
Signing Date:22.02.2024
11:22:27
challenge and opposition to the said takeover is the perceived apprehension
that the promotions, inter-se seniority, service conditions and timely
payment of salaries of the staff working at UCMS will be adversely affected
due to the said takeover. The Petitioners are desirous that the control of
UCMS should be retained by DU and not handed over to GNCTD. Though
there is no specific relief for setting aside the Cabinet Decision in the
contested writ petitions, however, in effect the Petitioners are challenging
the said decision; as the GNCTD's [impugned] order dated 30th September,
2016 is in furtherance of the said Cabinet Decision.
Anshul Gupta vs Prime Minister Office on 1 September, 2023
In the facts of this case, the material on record shows that there
was a detailed consideration by Respondent No. 2, MoHFW, Respondent
No. 1 MHRD and GNCTD on the issue at hand and it was thereafter, placed
with a detailed note before the Cabinet of Union of India for considering the
2
State of U.P. v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (2008) 5 SCC 550; State of H.P. v. H.P. Nizi Vyavsayik
Prishikshan Kendra Sangh (2011) 6 SCC 597; Anshul Gupta vs Prime Minister Office passed in W.P (C)
No. 635/2023 decided on 01.09.2023; W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18
SCC 39.
1