Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.35 seconds)Mohammad Shujat, Ali & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1974
In Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi Development
Authority & others, AIR 1989 SC 307, this Court while taking note of
T.N. Khosa's case (supra) and Mohd. Shujat Ali's case (supra) observed
in para 7 as under:
Roop Chand Adlakha And Ors vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 26 September, 1988
In Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi Development
Authority & others, AIR 1989 SC 307, this Court while taking note of
T.N. Khosa's case (supra) and Mohd. Shujat Ali's case (supra) observed
in para 7 as under:
The General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. on 1 September, 1971
14. A wooden equality as between all classes of
employees irrespective of all distinctions or
qualifications, or job-requirements is neither
constitutionally compelled nor practically meaningful.
This Court in General Manager, South Central Railway
vs. A.V.R. Siddhanti, (1974) 3 SC 207 at p. 214 : (AIR
1974 SC 1755 at p. 1`760 observed :
P. Murugesan And Others vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 3 February, 1993
In P. Murugesan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others,
(1993) 2 SCC 340, this Court held up the validity of the rule prescribing the
ratio of 3:1 between graduates and diploma holders in promotion as also the
longer qualifying period for service for diploma holders. While noting the
earlier decisions a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed:
J. Ranga Swamy vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 20 December, 1989
In J. Ranga Swamy vs. Govenrment of Andhra Pradesh and
others, AIR 1990 SC 535 and in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Lata
Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642, this Court observed that the eligibility
qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment or promotion in
service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority, and not by
the Courts.
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Lata Arun on 17 July, 2002
In J. Ranga Swamy vs. Govenrment of Andhra Pradesh and
others, AIR 1990 SC 535 and in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Lata
Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642, this Court observed that the eligibility
qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment or promotion in
service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority, and not by
the Courts.
Union Of India vs Pushpa Rani & Ors on 29 July, 2008
17. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it
will make the functioning of the administration impossible. The
administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite
qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer,
and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a Court of Appeal.
The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the
Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative
decisions. (See Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others 2008 (9) SCC
242 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others 2008 (10) SCC 1).
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
In Tata Cellular vs Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 SC, it has been
held that there should be judicial restraint in administrative decision. This
principle will apply all the more to a Rule under Article 309 of the
Constitution.
State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors on 26 September, 1973
In Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi Development
Authority & others, AIR 1989 SC 307, this Court while taking note of
T.N. Khosa's case (supra) and Mohd. Shujat Ali's case (supra) observed
in para 7 as under: