Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
Rabindra Nath Mahata vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 7 July, 2005 cites

Sri Debasis Dutta vs State Of West Bengal on 13 May, 1998

2. As the learned Single Judge considering the present writ petition expressed his disagreement with the view taken by the other learned Single Judge in the case of Sanjay Kumar Ray (supra) and was of the view that Special Bench decision in the case of Debasis Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 1998(2) CLJ 1, still holds good and no law was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Abu Taker (supra) that a person will be entitled to offer his candidature in any recruitment process even though his name is not sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the said purpose, when relevant rules make such exercise a mandatory requirement and in view of the above opinion as the learned Judge was not in agreement with the other view for getting the question decided by a larger Bench, a direction was given to place the file before the Hon'ble Chief Justice recording the question involved as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 13 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs N. Hargopal & Ors on 13 April, 1987

44. Mr. Moitra relied on the decision in Union of India and Ors. v. N. Hargopal and Ors., , which, in my view, appears to be misplaced. On the other hand, it supports the view I have taken. Inasmuch as in paragraph 8, it has been held that the Government organizations are desirous of adhering to the rule that all vacancies should be notified in the Employment Exchanges and the vacancies should also be filled up by the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. It is only when no suitable candidates are available, that other source of recruitment may be considered. The Government is at liberty to issue such instructions without contravening any Constitutional provision or any statute. These instructions cannot bind other bodies, which are created by statute and which function under the authority of statute. In the absence of any statutory prescription, the statutory authority may, however, adopt and follow such instructions if it thinks fit. Otherwise, the Government may not compel statutory bodies to make appointment of persons from among candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges only. Nonetheless, it was held that the instruction to consider the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges only was held not to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was not a case where it was held that the candidatures of the persons without being sponsored by the Employment Exchanges cannot at all be considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 240 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Raj Kumar & Ors. Etc vs Shakti Raj & Ors. Etc on 11 February, 1997

While considering the said judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) it is noticed that facts narrated in the judgment considered the rules relevant for the said selection not providing for any advertisement or other modes of publication and still then the view in the case of KBN Visweshwara Rao (supra) was reiterated by the Apex Court by a three-member Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 138 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Arnit Das vs State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2000

45. The reliance in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, , placed by Mr. Moitra is equally misplaced. Inasmuch as relying on the said decision, Mr. Moitra sought to contend that a decision not expressed, not accompanied by reasons and no proceeding on a conscious consideration of an issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. That which has escaped in the judgment is not the ratio 21. This is the rule of sub silentio, in the technical sense when a particular point of law was not consciously determined.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 264 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next