Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.36 seconds)
Professor Vijay Kumar Agrawal vs Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya on 13 April, 2024 cites

Director General Of Posts & Ors vs B. Ravindran & Anr on 8 November, 1996

Thus, when examined from this aspect then specific communication being available on record, the ratio of law in Director General of Posts and others (supra) in para 16 though provides that subsequent orders were supplementary in nature and were not having binding force in as much as subsequent clarifactory instructions cannot supercede earlier regulations will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, in as much as, there is a U.G.C. clarification contained in Annexure R-9, dated 21 st February, 2002, specifically addressed to the Vice Chancellor of Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa and that will be having a binding force.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Regional Manager, Bank Of Baroda vs Anita Nandrajog on 1 September, 2009

As far as issue of issuance of show-cause notice is concerned, notice was issued by the University. In reference to the notice issued by the Chancellor of the University in terms of the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973, since the issue in regard to eligibility was to be adjudged on the basis of factual matrix, issuance of notice and reply was sufficient. As far as in the factual background, none of the persons affected have disputed their actual date of promotion as Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 25-04-2024 10:37:19 24 Reader as 19.11.1996/3.05.1997 and once that date is not disputed, then what was only required to be seen by the Chancellor while exercising authority under Section 12 (4) of the Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 is whether there was any infraction of Regulations of 2000 or the Ordinance 4 (B) of the University vis-a-vis clarification issued by the U.G.C. on 21st February, 2002 and if there was no conflict amongst them, then there was no requirement of giving opportunity of personal hearing in terms of the law laid down in the case of Mangilal (supra), V.D. Jha (supra) and Anita Nandrajog (supra) etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - M Katju - Full Document

Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh vs A. L. Pande And Another on 12 January, 1965

Thus, when examined from this point of view, it is true that the Ordinance made by the University has a statutory force but it is to be given a true meaning and import in terms of the aforesaid explanation as contained in the proviso below Clause 2.8.0 of the Regulations of 2000 and that clarifactory posts being expounded by the U.G.C. prior to the meeting of the U.G.C. council on 21st February, 2002 itself will be binding on the respondent University and the petitioners and, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Prabhakar Ramakrishna Jodh (supra) will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Mangilal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2004

As far as issue of issuance of show-cause notice is concerned, notice was issued by the University. In reference to the notice issued by the Chancellor of the University in terms of the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973, since the issue in regard to eligibility was to be adjudged on the basis of factual matrix, issuance of notice and reply was sufficient. As far as in the factual background, none of the persons affected have disputed their actual date of promotion as Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 25-04-2024 10:37:19 24 Reader as 19.11.1996/3.05.1997 and once that date is not disputed, then what was only required to be seen by the Chancellor while exercising authority under Section 12 (4) of the Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 is whether there was any infraction of Regulations of 2000 or the Ordinance 4 (B) of the University vis-a-vis clarification issued by the U.G.C. on 21st February, 2002 and if there was no conflict amongst them, then there was no requirement of giving opportunity of personal hearing in terms of the law laid down in the case of Mangilal (supra), V.D. Jha (supra) and Anita Nandrajog (supra) etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 211 - A Pasayat - Full Document

J.K. Vasavada & Ors vs Chandrakanta Chimanlal Bhavsar & Anr on 28 August, 1975

There is a clarification prior to the meeting of the Executive Council and that circular being issued prior to the conduct of the meeting of the Executive Council to consider the cases of eligible Readers for promotion, then that circular issued under the U.G.C. Regulations having been issued in exercise of the powers akin to delegate legislation will have the force of law as held by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 25-04-2024 10:37:19 21 Supreme Court in J. K. Vasavada and others Vs. Chandrakanta Chimanlal Bhavsar and another AIR 1975 SC 2089.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

St. Marys Education Society vs Rajendra Prasad Bhargava on 24 August, 2022

Infact, in view of recent pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of St. Mary's Education Society and another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others [2022 Live Law (SC) 709], infact a writ is not maintainable in case of private educational institutions and, therefore, when examined from that aspect also, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 25-04-2024 10:37:19 23 law laid down in the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol (supra) will be of no application or assistance to the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 84 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Uppal & Ors vs State Of J & K And Ors on 14 January, 1998

Thus, when examined from this aspect, then as per the law laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar Uppal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (1998) 4 SCC 179, such power of relaxation is to be necessarily conceded to the employer particularly the State Government or the Central Government but in this case, once that power of relaxation is taken away by the U.G.C. which is the apex regulator of Higher Education in India, then dehors the directives of the regulator, power of relaxation could not have been exercised especially when it is meant to deal with a particular category of cases, facing hardship on account of different criteria for promotion under 2000 Regulations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 24 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 Next