Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao on 31 August, 1967
However, the said
decisions proceed on their own facts, which are different from the facts of the
present case, and as such, said decisions also would not advance the argument
of Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners and would not be applicable in
all force to the facts and circumstances herein this case, in view of the decision
of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Mysore vs. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in AIR 1968 SC 349, wherein a
valid classification based on educational qualification for the purpose of grant of
pay has been upheld.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Director Of Elementary Education, ... vs Sri Pramod Kumar Sahoo on 26 September, 2019
13. This issue was dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.
P.A. Bhatt (supra), wherein discussing its earlier decisions in the cases of
State of Mysore vs. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in 1967 SCC OnLine SC
103; C. Girijambal vs. State of A.P., reported in (1981) 2 SCC 155;
Mewa Ram Kanojia vs. AIIMS, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 235; Shyam Babu
Verma vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521; and also
considering the decision in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahoo (supra), which has
been relied upon by Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondent
Nos. 2 to 18, being the authorities in the SSA, has held that a classification
based upon educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. Etc. vs Dr. P A Bhatt & Ors. Etc. on 26 April, 2023
16. Though Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out
that the petitioners are having fifteen years of experience and as such, they are
equal to the District Project Engineers having B.E. degree in Civil Engineering,
yet in view of the settled proposition of law in the case of Dr. P.A. Bhatt
(supra), this Court is unable to agree with Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994
13. This issue was dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.
P.A. Bhatt (supra), wherein discussing its earlier decisions in the cases of
State of Mysore vs. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in 1967 SCC OnLine SC
103; C. Girijambal vs. State of A.P., reported in (1981) 2 SCC 155;
Mewa Ram Kanojia vs. AIIMS, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 235; Shyam Babu
Verma vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521; and also
considering the decision in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahoo (supra), which has
been relied upon by Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondent
Nos. 2 to 18, being the authorities in the SSA, has held that a classification
based upon educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
In the case of Randhir Singh
(supra), the petitioner was serving as the driver-constables of the Delhi Police
Force, who performed no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments.
The respondents in their counter affidavit had admitted that the duties of the
driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. Under the said factual
backdrop the issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court was- what then is the reason
for giving them a lower scale of pay than others?