Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.61 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kaberi Khastagir & Ors on 10 December, 2008
"8.5.It is surprising to note that the State is taking umbrage under the
judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerbi case, but not
referring to the subsequent judgments in Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa
and State of W.B. Vs. Kaberi Khastagir's case (cited supra) as well as the
interim order passed by the Supreme Court in PUCL's case. It also ignores the
scheme of appointment formulated in this State which is vastly different from
the State of Karnataka.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
"21.As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1 there can be certain
situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be
set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no
prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is
not necessary.
Dipitimayee Parida vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 20 October, 2008
26.Therefore, while dismissing all the writ petitions, a direction will
issue to the State Government to withdraw G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and Noon
Meal Programme Department, dated 6.1.2011 insofar as it had changed the
appointment procedure of noon meal staff in the centres attached to minority
schools. The State Government shall take a decision within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and bring employment in consistent with
the constitutional scheme covered by G.O.Ms.No.142, Social Welfare and Noon Meal
Programme Department, dated 6.7.2010 and in accordance with the judgment in
D.Pothumallee's case (cited supra). Otherwise it would amount to contravening
the judgment of this court which had become final."
People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2003
9.1.In the light of the above, this court has no hesitation to reject the
stand taken by the respondent State and by giving a positive direction to
provide for Reservation in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 45/1994, and also in the
light of the interim order dated 20.4.2004 passed by the Supreme Court in
W.P.(C)No.196 of 2001 in People's Union for Civil Liberties, Rajasthan Vs. Union
of India and to provide for reservation for SC/STs. Till such time they provide
such rules of reservation, the State is forbidden to fill up such large number
of posts (as many as 20000 posts) without due representation to SC/ST
communities ignoring the Constitutional mandate. "
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
21.Further, the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali
Khan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 in paragraphs 21 to 24 referred M.C.Mehta's
case and quoted it with approval which reads as follows:
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of
natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in
itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P.2 it is not
necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of
natural justice.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in
several cases. The above ruling and various other rulings taking the same view
have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma6. In
that case, the principle of "prejudice" has been further elaborated.