Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)Article 73 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013
In the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that eligibility criteria cannot
be changed midway through the recruitment process, unless the
existing Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary
to the extant Rules, so permit.
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed
from the select list whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals
with the right to be placed in the select list. The two
cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
Subash Chander
Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed
from the select list whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals
with the right to be placed in the select list. The two
cases therefore deal with altogether different issues;
Mrs. Garima Singh W/O Vivek Bhardwaj vs Union Of India Through on 9 May, 2011
In the case of Mrs. Garima Singh (supra), The Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi, in Para 20 held
that:-
Union Of India & Anr vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 22 November, 2013
In the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while dealing with the Office Memorandum, etc., in
Para 59, observed as hereunder:-
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Majji Jangamayya And Ors. on 5 November, 1976
"59. The law laid down above has consistently been
followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an
authority cannot issue orders/office
memorandum/executive instructions in contravention
of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be
issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to
supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to
the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji
Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State
of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v.
Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v.
Karnataka Lokayukta, (1998) 6 SCC 66, and Joint
Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG
of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435.)"
Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 1989
"59. The law laid down above has consistently been
followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an
authority cannot issue orders/office
memorandum/executive instructions in contravention
of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be
issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to
supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to
the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji
Jangamayya (1977) 1 SCC 606, P.D. Aggarwal v. State
of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 622, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v.
Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, C. Rangaswamaiah v.
Karnataka Lokayukta, (1998) 6 SCC 66, and Joint
Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG
of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435.)"