Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.43 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Lt. Col. Mukul Dev Major (Retd.) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 August, 2007
46. We have noticed hereinabove the reference made by the
Military Secretariat of the respondents so far as Lt. Col. Dev's case
is concerned not only accepted but endorsed and recommended his
eligibility premised on the law degree obtained by him from the
recognised university. The only waiver which had been sought and
which was the subject matter of the presidential sanction was to
the extent that he was holding a higher rank than was permissible
under para 82 of the Regulations. In this background, the
distinction sought to be drawn between this judicial precedent and
the present case is wholly misplaced and untenable.
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
In AIR 2008 SC 1470 : MANU/SC/0925/2008 K Manjusree
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. it was held that selection
criteria has to be adopted and declared at the time of
commencement of the recruitment process.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
53. Article 14 of the Constitution of India enshrines the concept of
equality as a fundamental right. Article 16 embodies the
fundamental guarantee that there shall be an equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State. The Supreme Court in
E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamilnadu & Anr. and also in
Maneka Gandhi case (1978) 2 SCR 621 reiterated that the basic
principle which informs Articles 14 & 16 is equality and inhibition
against discrimination.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
In this regard, the
observations of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority
of India & Ors. are topical and instructive and deserves to be
considered in extenso and the same reads as follows:-
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 November, 1974
Whatever its activity, the Government is still the
Government and will be subject to restraints,
inherent in its position in a democratic society. A
democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary
and capricious standards for the choice of persons
with whom alone it will deal". The same point
W.P.(C) No. 274/2009 page 26 of 33
was made by this Court in Erusian Equipment and
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengali
MANU/SC/0061/1974 : [1975]2SCR674 where the
question was whether black-listing of a person
without giving him an opportunity to be heard was
bad? xxx xxx xxx
xxx But the Court, speaking through the learned
Chief Justice, responded that the Government is not
like a private individual who can pick and choose
the person with whom it will deal, but the
Government is still a Government when it enters
into contract or when it is administering largess and
it cannot, without adequate reason, exclude any
person from dealing with it or take away largess
arbitrarily. The learned Chief Justice said that when
the Government is trading with the public, "the
democratic form of Government demands equality
and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in
such transactions. The activities of the Government
have a public element and, therefore, there should
be fairness and equality. The State need not enter
into any contract with anyone, but if it does so, it
must do so fairly without discrimination and without
unfair procedure." This proposition would hold good
in all cases of dealing by the Government with the
public, where the interest sought to be protected is
a privilege. It must, therefore, be taken to be the
law that where the Government is dealing with the
public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering
into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or
granting other forms of largess, the Government
cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a
private individual, deal with any person it pleases,
but its action must be in conformity with standard
or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or
irrelevant. The power or discretion of the
Government in the matter of grant of largess
including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences
etc., must be confined and structured by rational,
relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm
and if the Government departs from such standard
or norm in any particular case or cases, the action
of the Government would be liable to be struck
down, unless it can be shown by the Government
that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based
on some valid principle which in itself was not
irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory."
Coal India Ltd. & Anr vs Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors on 24 August, 2009
In the judgment reported at (2009) 15 SC 620 : JT 2009
W.P.(C) No. 274/2009 page 27 of 33
(11) SC 472 Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India
Limited & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors., the court
while considering the issue of proportionality of the punishment
imposed by an administrative body, commented on arbitrariness in
the exercise of discretionary power. This court placed reliance on
Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 1(1) pp. 144-45, para 78,
wherein it was stated that the court would quash exercise of
discretionary powers in which there is no reasonable relationship
between the objective sought to be achieved and the means used
to that end. The observations of the Apex Court on this aspect in
para 21 deserve to be considered in extenso and read as follows:-