P.Ganeshwar Rao & Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 September, 1988
The same view was taken in P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 Supp SCC 740: (AIR 1988 SC 2068).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983
In Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284: (AIR 1983 SC 852) similar question arose relating to recruitment by promotion. The question was whether promotion should be made in accordance with the Rules, in force on the date the vacancies occurred or in accordance with the amended Rules. The Court observed as under (para 9 of AIR):
B. N. Nagarajan And Ors vs State Of Mysore And Ors on 1 March, 1966
35. Later on, in that judgment, the Honble Apex Court had discussed the cases of B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, (1966) 3 SCR 682 : (AIR 1966 SC 1942), Y.V. Rangaiah vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 as well as P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 Supp SCC 740 & A.A. Callon v. Director of Education (1983) 3 SCC 33. Thereafter in Para-13 & 14 the Honble Apex Court had held as follows:-
A.A. Calton vs The Director Of Education & Another on 25 March, 1983
Similar view was taken in A. A. Calton v. Director of Education, (1983) 3 SCC 33: (AIR 1983 SC 1143). It is a well accepted principle of construction that a statutory rules or Government order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Where proceedings are initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should normally be regulated by the then existing rules and Government orders and any amendment of the rules or the Government order pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended rules or the amended Government orders issued in exercise of its statutory power either by express provision or by necessary intendment indicate that amended Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections.
P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989
See P. Mahendra v. State of Karnataka, (1989) 4 JT 459: (AIR 1990 SC 405).
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive-voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted.
Article 315 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sc W. P. No. 3938 (W) Of 2014 Sandip Sanyal ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2014
30. The respondents had also relied upon the Honble Delhi High Courts judgment in W.P. (C) No.3149/2014- S.P. Kala & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, delivered not in the context of direct recruitments, but in the context of promotions to the post of Superintendent (Electrical and Mechanical) Grade II under the General Reserve Engineer Force, and the respondents had particularly relied on Paragraphs 11 & 12 of the judgment, which states as follows:-