Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.08 seconds)Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004
Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (K.V) Mumbai vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 November, 2007
Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr on 17 December, 2009
M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 17 October, 2008
18.Recently, in Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr. Vs. Delhi
Development Authority & Ors.7, one of us (D.K. Jain, J.), referring to a
large number of authorities on the point, summarised the nature and
scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation as follows:
Sushanta Tagore & Ors vs Uoi&Ors on 3 March, 2005
It is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court
only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and
corresponding legal obligation in the State. Only because an illegality
has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated. It is
trite law that there cannot be equality in illegality. (Ref.: Sushanta
Tagore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.8; U.P. State Sugar Corpn.
Nagendra Chandra Etc. Etc vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 28 November, 2007
It was asserted that unlike
Nagendra Chandra's case (supra), where there was irregularity in the
appointment of Constables against the sanctioned posts, the present case
pertained to engagement of need based casual labourers without any
recruitment rules or sanctioned posts. It was thus, argued that the High
Court failed to notice distinction between the casual labourer and those
whose appointment was irregular because of non-compliance with some
procedure in the selection process, which is not the case here when none
of the respondents had earlier participated in recruitment for the post of
Sepoys.