Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.51 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 229 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
In the said circumstances, it would not be possible now to extend any benefit of regularisation in view of the mandate contained in the aforesaid judgment of Uma Devi (supra).
M. Gurumoorthy vs Accountant General Assam & Nagaland & ... on 21 April, 1971
A perusal of the judgment rendered in the Appeal by the Division Bench would show that the said Bench had distinguished application of constitution bench of Uma Devi's case on the premise that the power of appointment by Chief Justice as held by another Constitution Bench judgment of M.Gurmumurthy vs. Accountant General,Assam and Nagaland;AIR 171 SC 1850, is outside the scope and ambit of subsequent Constitution Bench Judgment in Uma Devi's Case.
Hon'Ble High Court Of Judicate At ... vs Devendra Kumar Pandey & Others on 20 September, 2011
"We would like to clarify that the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Vs. Devendra Kumar Pandey (supra) to the effect that Uma Devi's case has not touched the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench judgment of M. Gurumurthy (supra) is not correctly stated in the context of the Division Bench judgment, inasmuch as the decision in the case of M. Gurumurthy only spells out the powers of the Chief Justice but the same does not in any way hold that the Chief Justice can exercise powers that may run-counter to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution while making appointments in the establishment of the High Court.
State Of U.P. vs Class Iv Employees Association, High ... on 25 February, 2003
If the ratio of the said decision is applied herein, then the observations made in the Division Bench judgment in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Class-IV Employees Association (supra) would stand diluted.
State Of Haryana And Others vs Ram Kumar And Ors. Etc on 9 March, 2004
On the strength of the decisions rendered in State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar; 1997(3)SCC 321, State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh; 2000(9)SCC 94 and other cases, Sri Upendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that before invoking the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and seeking parity of treatment with others, petitioners have to demonstrate that it does not amount to negative parity because negative parity is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution as two wrongs do not make one right. Doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable rights.
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000
On the strength of the decisions rendered in State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar; 1997(3)SCC 321, State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh; 2000(9)SCC 94 and other cases, Sri Upendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that before invoking the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and seeking parity of treatment with others, petitioners have to demonstrate that it does not amount to negative parity because negative parity is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution as two wrongs do not make one right. Doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable rights.
Liquidator vs . Dayanand & Ors. (Reported In on 17 March, 2009
Elaborating his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that though in the case of UPSEB vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey; 2007 (11) SCC 92, it has been held that Uma Devi's Case cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of particular case because a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi's case inapplicable but the three Judges Bench in a subsequent decision given in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & others; 2008(10) SCC 1 held in unambiguous words that in view of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgment of Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's Case is binding on all courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court till the same is overruled by a Larger Bench.