Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.73 seconds)The State Of Orissa vs Sudhansu Sekhar Misra And Ors on 7 November, 1967
19. Nextly, we have also gone through the complete judgment which is heavily relied upon by both the parties, i.e., UPSRTC. In this case, no question seems to have been raised regarding the conducting of the written test or otherwise and consequently no finding has been given on this point. We only find that when dealing with the matter regarding grant of the relief, the Supreme Court has observed that in the particular case the trainee would not be required to appear in the written examination. The law on the precedent is well settled. The essence of a decision has been lucidly dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647, wherein their Lordships has held as under:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000
We find support of our view from a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Ors., 2000(9.) SGC 94=2001(1) SLJ 76 (SC). Thus, the O.A. fails on all counts and the action of the respondents is well in conformity with the rules in force as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Of Road Transport ... vs U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs ... on 12 January, 1995
2. The indubitable facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved are that applicants have under gone a training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and have passed in 69th All India Trade Test Examination vide letter dated 15th January, 1999 (Annex.-P/5). Their names are placed Sl. Nos. 7, 9, 6, 10, 3 and 12 respectively. The said training was imparted in the Northern Railway Workshop, Jodhpur. The Railway Board have issued the instructions regarding recruitment of Course completed Act Apprentices on the Railways vide letter dated 26.8.1996 (Annexure-A/2. This has been issued in view of the verdict of Hon'ble the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikshukh Berozgar Sangh and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as 'UPSRTC' for brevity) case for reported in (1995) 2 SCC 1, on the basis of which the Ministry of Labour also have issued directions on 26.2.1996 (Annex.-A/3). It has been also averred that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case, it has been specifically directed that Act Apprentices trainees could not be required to appear in any written examination for employment, if any, provided by the Regulation. A common seniority list was prepared by the respondent No. 4 of Act Apprentices trainees for appointment on the post of Diesel Khalasi. The interview letters were issued on 11.2.1999 to the applicants. However, for want of vacancies, the applicants had not alternative except to stand in the que and wait for their turn. Further, before their turns were to come the Railway Board, issued an order dated 19.8.1999 restraining the concerned authorities from providing appointment to Act Apprentices on Group 'D' post.