Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.45 seconds)Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
P.Ganeshwar Rao & Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 September, 1988
The judgment in P. Ganeshwar
Rao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others[3] is also to the same
effect. Para 9 of the judgment laying down the aforesaid proposition of
law, is reproduced below:
N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990
“9. When the statutory rules had been frame din 1978, the vacancies had to
be filled only according to the said Rules. The Rules of 1995 have been
held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the
correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether
the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the
1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Mehta to a decision of
this Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service
Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157].
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Arun Kumar Aggarwal & Ors on 4 May, 2007
“There is no quarrel over the proposition of law that normal rule is that
the vacancy prior to the new Rules would be governed by the old Rules and
not by the new Rules. However, in the present case, we have already held
that the Government has taken conscious decision not to fill the vacancy
under the old Rules and that such decision has been validly taken keeping
in view the facts and circumstances of the cases.”
This position is reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal[5].
Shailesh Dhairyawan vs Mohan Balkrishna Lulla on 16 October, 2015
In order to gather the intention of the lawmaker, the principle of
'purposive interpretation' is now widely applied. This has been explained
in the case of Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla[6] in the
following words:
Badshah vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr on 18 October, 2013
“(xiv) up to maximum 10 years: for women candidate: As per Rajpatra
(Asadharan) dated 7.2.1997, Published rule C.G. Civil Service (Special
provision of appointment for women) Rule 1997, 10 years age relaxation will
be given to women candidate.”
It can, therefore, be clearly inferred that incorporation in the manner
aforesaid Rules, 1997 were made applicable for the examination in question
and in this way the lacuna in Rules, 2000 also got filled up. It would not
be too much presumptuous to say that omission of Rules, 1997 in Rule 8 of
Rules, 2000 was merely accidental and it was not a case of casus omissus.
Because of this reason, said omission was also rectified while enacting
Rules, 2005 by making a specific provision in Rule 8(f) of Rules, 2005.
Therefore, the intention of the rule making authorities had always been to
give benefit of relaxation in age to women candidates. After all, we are
called upon to interpret subordinate legislation salutary aim whereof is to
achieve social purpose and consequently social justice. What should be the
approach in interpreting such laws is explained in Badshah v. Sou. Urmila
Badshah Godse and Anr.[7] in the following words:
Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983
The admitted facts are that the process of selection started before
Rules, 2005 were promulgated with the requisitions dated September 27, 2004
and March 26, 2005 sent by the State Government to the CPSE. At that time,
Rules, 2000 were in vogue. For this reason, even in the requisition it was
mentioned that appointments are to be made under Rules, 2000. Further, it
is also an admitted fact that the vacancies in-question which were to be
filled were for the period prior to 2005. Such vacancies needed to be
filled in as per those Rules, i.e. Rules, 2000. This is patent legal
position which can be discerned from Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J.
Shreenivasa Rao[1]. As per the facts of that case a panel had to be
prepared every year of list of approved candidates for making appointments
to the grade of Sub-Registrar Grade-II by transfer according to the old
rules. However, the panel was not prepared in the year 1976 and the
petitioners were deprived of their right of being considered for promotion.
In the meanwhile, new rules came into force. In this factual background,
it was held that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules
would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules.
Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs Veena Kaushal & Ors on 27 April, 1978
22. In taking the aforesaid view, we are also encouraged by the following
observations of this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal
(1978) 4 SCC 70: