Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Madhusudan Mondal And Others vs Union Of Inida And Others on 28 February, 2017 cites

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs Manilal Gordhandas & Ors. Etc. Etc on 11 September, 1996

The onus to establish that the respondents acted with ulterior motive is entirely on the petitioners, as held by the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Vs. Monilal Gordhandas, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2804. In respect of the petitioners have failed miserably. There is nothing even to suggest, far less establishing, that the respondents had any motive behind declaring the petitioners medically unfit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - N P Singh - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs G.K. Deshak on 21 January, 1993

In the case of State Bank of India Vs. G. K. Deshak reported in AIR 1993 SC 2447, a similar question as in the present one cropped up for consideration before the Supreme Court. There the respondent had applied for the post of clerk of the State Bank of India. Although he qualified in the written examination and the interview he was found to be suffering from serious eye trouble and was subjected to more than one medical test. Ultimately, he was found medically unfit. He filed a writ petition in the High Court asserting his medical fitness and entitlement for appointment. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court. In appeal a three- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court observed that the medical opinion clearly indicated the defect in his eyes and he was unfit for the post. The reasons given in the impugned judgment indicated that the High Court took upon itself to decide the question of medical fitness of the respondent and on reaching a conclusion in favour of the respondents, preferred the same as against the medical opinion of the specialist doctors. The Supreme Court noted it as significant that it was not suggested on behalf of the respondents that the authorities of the bank had acted mala fide or with any malice against the respondent. The Supreme Court did not approve the approach adopted by the High Court in allowing the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Rajpal Singh on 7 November, 2008

This judgment is basically on the interpretation of the army order and the Supreme Court had held that the concerned army order came into operation after an opinion had been formed as to whether a particular personnel was to be retained in service or not. If a person is to be retained in employment despite his low medical category for a particular period, the question of subjecting him to the Invalidating Board may not arise. But if he is to be discharged on the ground of medical unfitness he has to be discharged as per the procedure laid down in Clause I (ii).
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 113 - D K Jain - Full Document

Lt. Colonel K.D. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 1989

Mr. Bhattacharya next relied on the case of Lieutenant Colonel K. D. Gupta Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1178. This judgment also does not help the petitioners in any manner. This was a case where the petitioners were subjected to frequent psychiatric examinations without any real justification and was re-categorized in terms of his medical fitness. Considering the facts of the case and all the aspects involved in it, particularly the allegation of prejudicial approach developed against him in the head quarter without any justification and the fact that he had been unduly subjected to psychiatric examination from time to time, the Supreme Court, in order to remove the apprehension of bias from the mind of the appellant, directed the examination of the appellant by a specially constituted board with only one outsider as the Chairman. The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents had agreed as a special case to the constitution of board of psychiatrists. Consequently, a three- member board was constituted of which two doctors were from the army.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1