Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Anis Ahmed Khan vs Kvs on 6 November, 2023 cites

State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004

Vs State Of U.P. & Another(Supra), State of UP &Ors Vs Govardhan Lal (supra),Airport Authority of India Vs Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors (supra), Rajendra Singh &Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (Supra) , State Of Haryana &Ors Vs Kashmir Singh &Ors (supra), Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Durgesh Kuwar (supra), Union of India and Others Vs. Ganesh Dass Singh (supra), has given upper hand to the administrative authorities or the Government in matters of Transfers. In all those judgments, the Apex Court held that the Public Interest is paramount in such administrative exercises and there is very 41 OA No. 16/2023 and connected matters limited scope for judicial review in the matters of transfer. As it has been held in the other set of judgments cited in paragarph 34 above, unless there is malafide, bias, infringement of statutory provisions, lack of competency, non- application of mind, etc, the courts and tribunals should not interfere in the administrative decision in respect of transfers. In the instant case, as we have already discussed above, we do not find any such bias or non-application of mind in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1319 - D Raju - Full Document

Jaya Purwar vs Kvs on 27 March, 2023

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on judgment in O.A. No. 608/2023 of the Principal Bench of this Bench titled Smt. Jaya Purwar Vs. KVS & Ors. on the same issue challenging the same order dated 12.09.2022 as the present bunch of cases wherein the Hon'ble Principal Bench has dismissed the Original Application in the light of the jdugement of Hon'ble Apex Court and stated that:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Kashmir Singh & Ors on 6 October, 2010

Vs State Of U.P. & Another(Supra), State of UP &Ors Vs Govardhan Lal (supra),Airport Authority of India Vs Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors (supra), Rajendra Singh &Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (Supra) , State Of Haryana &Ors Vs Kashmir Singh &Ors (supra), Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Durgesh Kuwar (supra), Union of India and Others Vs. Ganesh Dass Singh (supra), has given upper hand to the administrative authorities or the Government in matters of Transfers. In all those judgments, the Apex Court held that the Public Interest is paramount in such administrative exercises and there is very 41 OA No. 16/2023 and connected matters limited scope for judicial review in the matters of transfer. As it has been held in the other set of judgments cited in paragarph 34 above, unless there is malafide, bias, infringement of statutory provisions, lack of competency, non- application of mind, etc, the courts and tribunals should not interfere in the administrative decision in respect of transfers. In the instant case, as we have already discussed above, we do not find any such bias or non-application of mind in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 429 - M Katju - Full Document

Punjab And Sind Bank vs Durgesh Kuwar on 25 February, 2020

Vs State Of U.P. & Another(Supra), State of UP &Ors Vs Govardhan Lal (supra),Airport Authority of India Vs Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors (supra), Rajendra Singh &Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (Supra) , State Of Haryana &Ors Vs Kashmir Singh &Ors (supra), Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Durgesh Kuwar (supra), Union of India and Others Vs. Ganesh Dass Singh (supra), has given upper hand to the administrative authorities or the Government in matters of Transfers. In all those judgments, the Apex Court held that the Public Interest is paramount in such administrative exercises and there is very 41 OA No. 16/2023 and connected matters limited scope for judicial review in the matters of transfer. As it has been held in the other set of judgments cited in paragarph 34 above, unless there is malafide, bias, infringement of statutory provisions, lack of competency, non- application of mind, etc, the courts and tribunals should not interfere in the administrative decision in respect of transfers. In the instant case, as we have already discussed above, we do not find any such bias or non-application of mind in the present case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

State Of Madya Pradesh & Ors vs Sri S.S. Kourav & Ors on 19 January, 1995

39. As regards the personal hardship of the applicant is concerned, we agree that the Apex Court in State of MP and Ors. Vs S.S. Kourav & Ors [CA No. 1285 of 1995 decided 19.1.1995] held that the administrative Authority is best judge to consider such hardships and take appropriate decision keeping balance between personal hardship of employee and public interest. The apex court in this judgment held that : "It is further contended that in an unfortunate situation the respondent's wife committed suicide leaving three children and he would suffer extreme hardship if he has to work in the tribal area. This court cannot go into that question of relative hardship. It would be for the administration to consider the facts of the given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration. If there is any such hardship, it would be open to make a representation to the government and it is for the government to consider and take appropriate decision in that behalf." The respondents have considered the personal and family circumstances of the applicant and passed a reasoned and speaking order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 502 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Smt. Nalini Shrivastava vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Kvs) on 3 March, 2023

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant have produced a copy of the judgement dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in MP No. 5185/2023 titled Neena Khatri Vs. KVS & others on the same cause of action. Petitioners therein were also aggrieved by the same orders dated 12.09.2022, 13.09.2022 and 16.09.2022 as in the present bunch of cases. They were also transferred by the same order. The Hon'ble High Court dealt with at length, the contentions of the respondents that they undertook the exercise of rationalization and distribution through the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 with the objective to fill-up the vacancies in those Kendriya Vidyalayas situated all over the country where staff incumbency was less than 50%. The exercise of the rationalization and redistribution was initiated in view of the stalemate arising out of interim orders passed in a bunch of petitions pending in different High Courts and thereafter in the Apex Court where NCTE notification extending priority to B.Ed. qualification for appointment of Teachers over 43 OA No. 16/2023 and connected matters Diploma in Elementary Education, was under
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - R Malimath - Full Document

Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 6 August, 2007

Vs State Of U.P. & Another(Supra), State of UP &Ors Vs Govardhan Lal (supra),Airport Authority of India Vs Rajeev Ratan Pandey and Ors (supra), Rajendra Singh &Ors Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (Supra) , State Of Haryana &Ors Vs Kashmir Singh &Ors (supra), Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Durgesh Kuwar (supra), Union of India and Others Vs. Ganesh Dass Singh (supra), has given upper hand to the administrative authorities or the Government in matters of Transfers. In all those judgments, the Apex Court held that the Public Interest is paramount in such administrative exercises and there is very 41 OA No. 16/2023 and connected matters limited scope for judicial review in the matters of transfer. As it has been held in the other set of judgments cited in paragarph 34 above, unless there is malafide, bias, infringement of statutory provisions, lack of competency, non- application of mind, etc, the courts and tribunals should not interfere in the administrative decision in respect of transfers. In the instant case, as we have already discussed above, we do not find any such bias or non-application of mind in the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 256 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1