Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 57 (0.35 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Rajkishore Nanda & Ors Etc. Etc on 3 June, 2010
34. Reference has also been made to the decision
rendered in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs Rajkishore
Nanda & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2100 where the Court held that If
the selection process is over and merit list has expired and
appointments had been made, then no relief can be granted. The
writ petitioners have approached the District Appellate
Authority after a period of 5 to 7 years and that too without any
cause of action. Further the appointment was prohibited from
the said merit list and no vacant post has to be merged with the
3rd phase appointment of 2012, as per new Rules, 2012.
Section 5 in The Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Article 243 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
42.4. We must keep it in our mind as to whether
circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which
is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches.
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted
against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be
preferred; for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right
in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay.
[vide: Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
79/103
Katiji & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Tukaram Kana Joshi &
Ors. and Thr.
Shah Shobha Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 April, 2017
41.11. Before parting with the conclusion, it would
be unjust and improper on our part, if we fail to take note of the
submission led by the learned Advocate for the appellants that
one of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Pradip Kumar Yadav @ Pradeep Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors. and other analogous cases [C.W.C.J. No.
17508 of 2021] dated 17.04.2025 has held that the order passed
by the Chairperson of the State Appellate Authority, who was an
officer of Indian Administrative Service, can only be held to be
without jurisdiction and placing reliance upon the said judgment
as well as the order rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 12632 of 2025
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
74/103
[Shobha Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.], 2025 (4) PLJR 1,
besides the other grounds, one of us (Harish Kumar, J.)
Ali Hossain Mandal vs West Bengal Board Of Primary Education on 22 August, 2023
33. Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General-13, Mr. Prateek Kumar, as well as other
learned Advocates representing the State respondents in their
respective cases have vehemently refuted the contention of the
appellants. Dispelling the primary contention of the appellants
that the vacancies have arisen consequent upon death and
resignation of Panchayat/Block Teachers appointed in 1st and 2nd
Phase appointment giving cause of action for getting
appointment on the basis of merit list prepared in the year 2007-
08 is said to be wholly fallacious and lacks support of law.
Consequent upon coming of a new Teachers Appointment
Rules, 2012, the Education Department vide its letter no. 465
dated 09.07.2012 clearly stipulated that remaining vacancies
upon completion of 2nd phase appointment shall be merged with
the 3rd phase of 2012 and, as such, no appointment can be made
unless there is a specific dispute pending consideration before
Patna High Court L.P.A No.315 of 2025 dt. 24-04-2026
57/103
any forum. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that a merit list with
regard to appointment and selection for the public post is only
for one year and, as such, they do not have cause of action for
putting their grievance. [vide Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. Vs.
West Bengal Board of Primary Education & Ors., (2024) 15
SCC 90].
H.Guruswamy vs A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By Lrs on 16 August, 2021
Since this
Court finds that the sufficient cause has been assigned by the
appellants in approaching the State Appellate Authority as
referred hereinabove, the reliance placed by the appellants on
the decision in H. Guruswamy (supra) with all respect is not
applicable in the facts of this case.