Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.46 seconds)State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011
At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing
http://www.judis.nic.in
14/26
W.A.No.3198 of 2019
for the first Respondent herein relied upon a decision
of the Supreme Court in Secretary to Government,
School Education Department, Chennai vs.
R.Govindaswamy (2004 (4) SCC 769), wherein the
Supreme Court quoted the ratio laid down in State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC
1193, while considering the scope of regularisation of
irregular or part-time appointments in all possible
eventualities and laid down the well-settled
principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay
relevant in the context of the issues involved t. The
same are as under:
Prem Chand Somchand Shah And Anr.Etc. ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 5 February, 1991
(i) In Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of
India reported in (1991) 2 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, at paragraph 8, held thus, "8. As regards the right
to equality guaranteed under Article 14, the position is
well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst
equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed
against discriminatory treatment. It means that all
persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike
both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs Amala Annai Higher Sec.School on 28 August, 2009
(ii) Writ Court ought to have seen that the
Hon'ble Apex Court, reiterated the power of the
Government in sanctioning posts to aided institutions
in its judgment in SLP (C) No.5855 of 2009
(Government of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. Amala
http://www.judis.nic.in
11/26
W.A.No.3198 of 2019
Annai Higher Secondary School). The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the paras (15) and (16) has ordered as
follows:-
State Of U.P vs Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors on 2 July, 2013
(iv) In State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty
reported in 2013 (8) Scale 74 : (2013) 7 SCC 595, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be any
discrimination in treating equally placed persons on same
footing, for all purposes.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Karnataka And Ors. vs N. Parameshwarappa And Ors. on 9 October, 2002
(ii) In State of Karnataka v. N.Parameshwarappa
reported in 2003 (12) SCC 192, in paragraph 8, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
Kanyakumari District Sidha ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 13 March, 1996
In our view, the direction given by the Division
Bench of the High Court in G.Sahadevan Nair,
http://www.judis.nic.in
12/26
W.A.No.3198 of 2019
Kanyakumari District vs. Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary, Education Department,
Chennai and others 2008 (4) MLJ 289 for
consideration of the application of the institutions
and/staff employed by such institutions does not
mean that even though the particular institution may
not be eligible or entitled to grant-in-aid, the
Government is obliged to accept the application. The
direction given by the High Court clearly implies that
the Government is required to consider the
application of the institutions and/staff employed by
such institutions strictly in accordance with law and
take appropriate decision.
1