Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.47 seconds)Article 235 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madan Mohan Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 12 February, 1999
In the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) it has been held that duty of judiciary is to act fairly and to uphold rule of law. Faith reposed in Indian judiciary enjoins upon the Judges to apply these principles even while judicially reviewing the decision taken by them on the administrative side. Such an approach however was held to be found wanting in this case.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad vs Sarnam Singh & Anr on 15 December, 1999
72. It will be at this stage interesting to highlight the observation made in the case of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad v. Sarnam Singh and Anr. (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court took note of the fact that it has already been clarified in All India Judges' Association case that the directions issued are mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is evolved. It was, therefore, clarified in this case that the condition laid down by the Supreme Court regarding assessment of work, performance and conduct of Judicial Officers was a temporary measure and was not to be adopted as a permanent feature. The choice was thus left to the appointing authority. If the appointing authority had made necessary service rules extending the age of retirement, the above procedure was to be given up as the Officers would continue in service in accordance with the service rules made by the appointing authority in the respective States.
J. D. Shrivastava vs State Of M.P. & Others on 24 January, 1984
The material observation in the case of J.D. Srivastava (supra) is very important which reads as under:
Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992
64. The Constitution Bench in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. (supra) held that the judicial review of the order passed on administrative side is open only on grounds of mala fide, arbitrariness and perversity. The relevant part of the Judgment runs thus:
Shri Rajat Baran Roy vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 April, 1999
Further in the case of Rajat Baran Roy and Ors. (supra), it was held that the benefit of raised retirement age be made available only to efficient judicial officers and not to others. The directions and the rider were of transitional nature, applicable till the time State Governments framed suitable provisions for raising retirement age to 60 years. Retirement age in the case of petitioners, in this case, who were judicial officers in respondent State, stood raised to 60 years by virtue of State G.O. dated 20.6.1992, read with Central Govt. OM dated 13.5.1998 and State G.O. dated 15.5.1998. The State Government after issue of order dated 15.5.1998, could not take recourse to the rider for compulsorily retiring the petitioners on their attaining the age of 58 years. It is, clearly, applicable to the present case.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993
The respondent's service records were scrutinised by the High Court purportedly in view of the directions given in the second All India Judges' Association case. The High Court however, overlooked a vital fact that retirement age had already been increased to 60 years by new statutory rules notified before this Judgment. The respondent, in view of new rules, was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. It was, therefore, not necessary, for the High Court (on the administrative side) to have scrutinized service records at that stage. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court was wholly erroneous.