Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala, it was ruled that even constitutional
amendments which offended the basic structure of
the Constitution would be ultra vires the basic
structure. Sikri, CJ. laid stress on the basic
features enumerated in the preamble to the
Constitution and said that there were other basic
features too which could be gathered from the
Constitutional scheme (para 506 A of SCC).
Equality was one of the basic features referred to
in the Preamble to our Constitution. Shelat and
Grover, JJ. also referred to the basic rights referred
to in the Preamble. They specifically referred to
equality (paras 520 and 535A of SCC). Hegde &
Shelat, JJ. also referred to the Preamble (paras
Page 29 of 51
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 22:00:11 IST 2022
C/SCA/5956/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022
648, 652). Ray, J. (as he then was) also did so (para
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
In the earlier decision in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of
India [1992 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 454), B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.
speaking for the majority, while acknowledging that
equality and equal opportunity is a basic feature of our
Constitution, has explained the exultant position of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the
scheme of things. His Lordship stated: (SCC pp. 633-34,
paras 644-45)
"644(6). The significance attached by the founding
fathers to the right to equality is evident not only
from the fact that they employed both the
expressions 'equality before the law' and 'equal
protection of the laws' in Article 14 but proceeded
further to state the same rule in positive and
affirmative terms in Articles 15 to 18
644 (7). Inasmuch as public employment always
gave a certain status and power --- it has always
Page 30 of 51
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 22:00:11 IST 2022
C/SCA/5956/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022
been the repository of State power ---besides the
means of livelihood, special care was taken to
declare equality of opportunity in the matter of
public employment by Article 16. Clause (1),
expressly declares that in the matter of public
employment or appointment to any office under the
state, citizens of this country shall have equal
opportunity while clause (2) declares that no
citizen shall be discriminated in the said matter on
the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
descent, place of birth, residence or any of them.
At the same time, care was taken to, declare in
clause (4) that nothing in the said Article shall
prevent the state from making any provision for
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of
any backward class of citizen which in the opinion
of the state, is not adequately represented in the
services under the state.."(See paragraphs 6 and 7
in SCR pp. 544 and 545)
These binding decisions are clear imperatives that
adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a
must in the process of public employment.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L. Kesari & Ors on 3 August, 2010
Therefore, employing the ratio laid down by the Apex
Court in case of M.L. Kesari (supra), the appointment
when is being made, if it is not on a sanctioned post or if
the person does not possess the requisite qualification,
such appointment cannot be regularized. It is held by the
Apex Court as illegal appointment, when it comes to
considering the claim of regularization.
Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd vs U.T. Chandigarh And Ors on 19 December, 2003
36. This Court also quoted with approval (at SCC p.131,
para 69) the observations of this Court in Teri Oat
Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh to the effect: (SCC
p. 144, para 36)
"36. We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy
or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for
passing an order in relation whereto the appellants
miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further
trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional
jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would
not pass an order which would be in contravention
of a statutory provision."
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
In State of U.P. vs. Niraj
Awasthi and others this Court after referring to a
number of prior decisions held that there was no power
in the State under Art. 162 of the Constitution of India to
make appointments and even if there was any such
power, no appointment could be made in contravention
of statutory rules. This Court also held that past alleged
regularisation or appointment does not connote
entitlement to further regularization or appointment. It
Page 26 of 51
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 22:00:11 IST 2022
C/SCA/5956/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022
was further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction
to frame a scheme by itself or direct the framing of a
scheme for regularization.