Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)Roop Chand Adlakha And Ors vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 26 September, 1988
The Bank also contends that Staff Circular No. 66 dated 21-1-1997 (Annexure-K) giving relaxation/exemption to persons with only one eye, made it clear that such persons could be considered medically fit only for the purpose of promotion and the exemption/relaxation did not apply to the direct recruitments/appointments. It is contended that the eligibility criteria for promotion can be different from the eligibility for appointment by direct recruitment and there is nothing wrong in making a classification between the direct recruits and the promotees in this behalf. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarshetk, and Roop Chand Adlakha and Others v Delhi Development Authority and Others, it is contended that unless the policy is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or to bring about grossly unfair results, judicial policy should be one of judicial restraint; and Courts should not substitute their own opinion for that of the Authority as to what policy would best serve the objects and purposes which are sought to be achieved.
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
There is no bar in regard to the reasonable classification. When any provision is assailed on the ground that it contravened Article 14 of the Constitution, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group. The second is that such intelligible differentia should have a reasonable connection to the object sought to be achieved by the provision - D.S. Nakara and Others v Union of India.
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990
16.3 On the other hand in Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case, supra, the Supreme Court held that:
G.B. Mahajan And Ors vs Jalgaon Municipal Council And Ors on 13 September, 1990
16.1 In Jalgaon Municipal Council's case, supra, the Supreme Court cited with approval the following passages from the Article of Sir Gerard Brennan's "The Purpose and Scope of Judicial Review contained in Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the 1980s' published by the Oxford University Press;
Krishnan Kakkanth vs Government Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 February, 1996
(emphasis supplied)
16.2 In Krishnan Kakkanth's case, supra, the Supreme Court observed:
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
The Bank also contends that Staff Circular No. 66 dated 21-1-1997 (Annexure-K) giving relaxation/exemption to persons with only one eye, made it clear that such persons could be considered medically fit only for the purpose of promotion and the exemption/relaxation did not apply to the direct recruitments/appointments. It is contended that the eligibility criteria for promotion can be different from the eligibility for appointment by direct recruitment and there is nothing wrong in making a classification between the direct recruits and the promotees in this behalf. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarshetk, and Roop Chand Adlakha and Others v Delhi Development Authority and Others, it is contended that unless the policy is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or to bring about grossly unfair results, judicial policy should be one of judicial restraint; and Courts should not substitute their own opinion for that of the Authority as to what policy would best serve the objects and purposes which are sought to be achieved.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1