Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
In the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu it has been held by the Supreme Court that:
B. Varadha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 28 October, 1986
16. Further, in the case of B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka 1986 SC 1955 (pr. 5) it has been held that:
Article 161 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hari Singh Mann vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 August, 1974
The contrary view taken in Mann Singh's case to the said extent only is declared as in percuriam since in this case the Court did not take into consideration the relevant Rules of Executive Business framed under the provisions of the Constitution.
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ambika Prasad, Bharat Prasad, Brij ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 March, 1992
In the case of Kailash Bihari Prasad v. State of Bihar 1992 (1) PLJR (Paragraph 6) it has been held by this Court that the recommendation of the Establishment Committee is not binding on the Minister-in-charge who will be well within his competence to make such alteration/modifications which were necessary in public interest and in the best interest of. the administration. I respectfully agree with the proposition for the present case. Nonetheless what remains to be considered and is of more importance in the fact of the present case is, whether the Minister-in-charge can make alterations and/or modifications in recommendations of the Establishment Committee regarding transfers and postings even without assigning any reason and whether exercise of such a blatant discretion can be said to be valid within the ambit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
1