Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
B. S. Vadera vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 March, 1968 cites

The State Of Mysore vs Padmanabhacharya Etc.[P. B. ... on 5 October, 1965

The decision of this Court in State v. Padmanabhacharya(1), does not assist the petitioners. The rule, that came up, for consideration, has been referred to, at P. 999, of the Reports, in the judgment of Wanchoo, J., (as he then was); and the Court specifically says that the rule, referred to by it, cannot be made, under the proviso to Art. 309, of the Constitution. It is further stated that the notification, referred to, cannot be said to be a rule, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the services and posts, in connection with the affairs of the State. This Court further observes that the effect of the notification, or the rule, that it had to consider, was, to select certain Government servants, who had been illegally required to retire, and to say that even if the retirement had been Illegal, that retirement should be deemed to have been properly and lawfully made. Finally, the Court said, that such a declaration, made by the Governor, cannot, in any sense, be regarded as a rule, made under (1) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 994.] 586 the proviso to Art. 309. Having held that the rule, which was before it, was not one made under the proviso to Art. 309, the Court further observed, in that case, that it was not necessary to decide, whether a rule, governing conditions of service, of persons appointed in connection with the affairs of the State, can be made retrospectively, under the proviso to Art. 309. This decision, in our opinion, can be distinguished, on two grounds : (i) that the rule, in question, construed by the Court, was held to be one, not coming within the purview of the proviso to Art. 309; and (ii) the question, as to whether a rule, under the proviso to Art. 309, can be framed, to have retrospective effect, has been left open.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 26 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Ram Autar vs State Of U. P on 3 May, 1962

A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, on the other hand, in Ram Autar v. State of U.P. (4) has taken a view, contrary to the one, expressed by the Mysore High Court. We are of opinion that the latter, represents the correct view. But, even the Allahabad High Court has not given due importance to the mandatory words, used in the concluding part of the proviso to Art. 309, that the rules made, by the authority mentioned therein, 'shall have effect, subject to the provisions of any such Act'. This aspect has been emphasized by us, in the earlier part of this judgment. To conclude, on this aspect, 'we are satisfied that the Scheme, Annexure 4, as modified by Annexure 7, framed by the 2nd respondent, Railway Board, such as it is, must have effect, as it does not suffer from any defect in its making and does not offend against the Constitution. In the result, both the -writ petitions are dismissed; but, in the circumstances, parties will bear their own costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - K C Gupta - Full Document

G. Govindaraju, Junior Engineer Mysore ... vs State Of Mysore And Ors. on 11 October, 1962

We may state that the decision in Govindaraju's Case(2) came up, before this Court, on appeal, in Nagaraian v. Mysore (3). But this Court, in Nagarajan's Case(3), had no, occasion to express any opinion on the question as to whether the Governor, under the proviso to Art. 309, could frame a rule, having retrospective operation, as it took the view that the relevant rules had not been made under Art. 309.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1