Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.70 seconds)
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Correspondent on 25 March, 2021 cites

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors on 2 September, 2014

It also takes its sweep, those cases, where orders were obtained from the Court. It is trite that Act can be retrospective. In any case, the respondent does not have the vested right, which is sought to be taken away. No doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Pawan Kumar Divedi and others [(2014) 9 SCC 692], had dealt that whether the State Government is liable for for payment of salaries of Teachers and 14/16 http://www.judis.nic.in other employees. The said judgment may not be applicable to the facts of the present case, particularly grant of grant-in-aid was included as a condition by the Government while granting recognition. The amendment prohibits such grant after certain period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 219 - R M Lodha - Full Document

[State Of Odisha & Another vs . Anup Kumar Senapati & Another] on 15 October, 2019

In the case of State of Odisha and another vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and another [Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019], in paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that that grant-in-aid cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on completion of the prescribed period and it is dependent upon fulfilment of various conditions. In this case, recognition itself was granted to the respondent on the undertaken not to claim any grant-in-aid. Besides, Section 14-A of the Act, totally prohibits such grant. Therefore, we are of the view that merely 10/16 http://www.judis.nic.in because grant-in-aid has been granted to some schools in contravention of the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act, no validity can be sought for others as that tantamount to claim equality on the basis of illegality. In the case of Indore Development Authority [(2006) 2 SCC 604], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by mistake, it does not create right upon the appellants to claim equality.
Orissa High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

The Chandigarh Administration And ... vs Mrs. Rajni Vali And Others. on 12 January, 2000

In the case of Chandigarh Administration and others vs. Rajni Vali (MRs) and others [(2000) 2 SCC 42], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State administration cannot shirk from its responsibility of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of resources and it is for the authorities running the Administration to find out the ways and means of securing funds for the purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 222 - S R Babu - Full Document

The State Of Odisha vs Anup Kumar Senapati on 16 September, 2019

“13.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that non-consideration of the appellants for appointment as TEO is vitiated by hostile discrimination as two other persons who were similarly situated were appointed as TEOs and are continuing. It is trite law that the right to equality cannot be claimed in a case where a benefit has been given to a person contrary to law. If a mistake has been committed by the authorities in appointing few persons who were not eligible, a claim cannot be made by other ineligible persons seeking a direction to the authorities to appoint them in violation of the instructions. After referring to several judgments, this Court in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati 13/16 http://www.judis.nic.in [State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati, (2019) 19 SCC 626] held that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellants cannot, as a matter of right, claim appointment on the basis of two ineligible persons being given the benefit and no direction can be given to the respondents to perpetuate illegality.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 73 - A Mishra - Full Document
1   2 Next