Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sarada Panchayat Samiti Iii Gr. ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 12 November, 1991
In view of the above, the importance of primary education cannot be overlooked; nor there can be any latitude for making any kind of deviation therefrom and this Court had persistently depricated the practice of giving employment to untrained persons which is evident from the judgments of this Court in Chanda Tamboli v. Panchayat Samili Mandal (12); Bej Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (13); Hari Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (14); Kundal Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (15) Ragvendra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (16) and Smt. Harsh Lala v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (17) and its appeal Smt. HarshaLata v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (18) and Sarda Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (19); Panna Ram and Ors. v. Panchayat Samiti Sergar and Anr. (20); Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (21) and Bansroadgarh Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (22).
L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000
In a recent judgment in L. Muthukumar and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (9), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
Ram Sukh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 26 September, 1989
In Ram Sukh v. State of Rajasthan (10), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case for absorption of untrained teachers on the ground that they had been continuing for long. The Court observed as under:-
Andhra Kesari Educational Society vs Director Of School Education & Ors on 18 November, 1988
(10). While deciding the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court placed reliance upon the judgment in Andhra'Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education (11) wherein the Court had observed as under:-
Kalu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 1999
In view of the above, the importance of primary education cannot be overlooked; nor there can be any latitude for making any kind of deviation therefrom and this Court had persistently depricated the practice of giving employment to untrained persons which is evident from the judgments of this Court in Chanda Tamboli v. Panchayat Samili Mandal (12); Bej Nath v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (13); Hari Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (14); Kundal Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (15) Ragvendra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (16) and Smt. Harsh Lala v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (17) and its appeal Smt. HarshaLata v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (18) and Sarda Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (19); Panna Ram and Ors. v. Panchayat Samiti Sergar and Anr. (20); Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (21) and Bansroadgarh Panchayat Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (22).
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
While deciding the said case a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2); Purustiottam v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Anr. (3); Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors. (4); Indira Sawhni v. Union of India and Ors. (5) and A.P. Aggarwal v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. (6), and held that every State action, in order to survive, must not be succeptible to the vice of an arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Javed Niaz Beg And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 17 April, 1980
(19). Further, Articles 15 and 16 inhibit the discrimination only and only on the grounds mentioned in these Articles including the sex. But the said Articles do not prohibit the said principle making the discrimination on the ground other than those mentioned therein, or grounds mentioned therein coupled with other consideration. (Vide Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (25); Javed Niyaz Beg and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. (26) and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and Ors. (27) and a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ganga Ram Moolchandani v. High Court of Judicature for Rajaslhan and Ors. (28). In the instant cases, as the discrimination is not on the ground of sex only but also to fulfil the objective that the girls may also attend the schools and for up-lifting their education, the Government has framed the Scheme to have one female teacher in every school so that their parents may not have an apprehension in sending them to the school. In such circumstances, even if it is termed as "reservation", it may be permissible to some extent in taw.