Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The University Grants Commission Act, 1956
The Gujarat National Law University Act, 2003
Sachidananda K. And Ors. vs Bangalore University And Ors. on 18 January, 2006
Referring to the eligibility criteria, Mr. Dave also referred to the
judgement of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in the case of
Sachidananda K. & Ors. Vs. Bangalore University & Ors.,
in Writ Petition No.19399 of 2005 and the observations made therein,
for which he also referred to the provisions of UGC Act. He
emphasised that in that case also, the appointment of the respondents
therein in the Faculty of Law itself was questioned on the ground of
National Eligibility Test for the Lecturership and also other
qualifications as per the UGC Act, which prescribes the minimum
qualification for the appointment to the post. He also pointedly
referred to the excerpts from the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment and Career
Advancement of Teachers in University and Institutions affiliated to
it) Regulations, 2000, which has been quoted and referred to in that
judgement for supporting his submissions.
Krishna C. Mathur vs The University Of Jodhpur And Ors. on 21 January, 1980
He also referred and relied
upon a judgement of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of
Krishna C. Mathur vs. The University of Jodhpur and Ors.
in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.160 of 1978.
Sadananda Halo & Others vs Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others on 27 February, 2008
She also submitted that the petitioner has no locus
standi to question the appointment of others and in support of
this submission, she has, referring to and relying upon the judgement
of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sadananda Halo
(supra), pointed out the observations in paragraph 59 that it
is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot
turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course
exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule.
Union Of India & Others vs Bikash Kuanar on 11 October, 2006
5.1 Ms.
Rawal also referred to and relied upon a judgement of the Honourable
Apex Court in the case of Sadananda Halo & Ors. vs. Momtaz
Ali Sheikh & Ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619,
wherein the earlier judgement in the case of Union of India vs.
Bikas Kuanar, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 192 was
relied upon and
in the said judgement it was observed that the
Selection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot
be presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of
any allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard
to the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any
allegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In
the instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process
was not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to the
Court's notice. Therefore, Ms. Rawal submitted that as it was an
offer for the appointment on contract basis subject to the approval
of the Executive Council, the petitioner cannot make a grievance if
he is terminated simplicitor. It was submitted that there is no
question of giving any opportunity of hearing. She also referred to
the pleadings and submitted that admittedly, there were some
complaints made by the girl students about the conduct of the
petitioner, for which the Committee was formed. However, to avoid any
further consequences, the Executive Council, on the basis of the
material, has decided to discontinue the services by passing the
impugned resolution, which cannot be said to be arbitrary. She,
therefore, submitted that the submissions made by the petitioner are
misconceived.
State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967
In support of this
submission, the learned Advocate has referred to and relied upon the
judgement of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of
Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi, reported in AIR
1967 SC 1269 and emphasised that even the executive orders
are required to be supported by reasons, which have not been given in
the impugned order.
B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply And ... on 3 April, 2006
10. As
regards the aspect of locus standi, though the learned
Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the judgement of the High
Court of Karnataka with regard to the appointment of Faculty of Law
questioned by the petitioner, it is, however, to be considered in the
background of the facts and circumstances and it will not have any
application qua the facts of the present case because, as
observed in the judgement of the Honourable Court which has been
referred to by the learned Counsel Ms. Raval reported in B.
Srinivas Reddy (supra) that it cannot be challenged
by the person like the petitioner to redress his personal grievance.