Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.25 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Aparna Narendra Zambre vs Assistant Superintendent Engineer on 1 August, 2011
10843.2014 WP.odt
5
8] The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that, the reason given by the
respondents for non consideration of claim of the petitioner
for appointment that, the petitioner cannot be said to be
member of family of her father in view of her marriage, is
absolutely illegal and improper. The petitioner has
successfully cleared the written examination, and therefore,
she is entitled to be appointed on the post of Arogya Sevak
[women] from OBC and Project Affected Category on the
basis of nomination
ig made by her father and the
respondents cannot deny the claim of petitioner on the non
existing ground that, the petitioner cannot be said as
member of her father's family. The said reason is against
the law and well settled legal position. It is further
submitted that, in view of the Judgment in the case of
Aparna Narendra Zambre & another Vs. Assistant
Superintendent Engineer & others1 even married daughter
is also entitled for the appointment on compassionate
ground. In that case, the High Court held that, the
employment cannot be denied on the ground that the
daughter is married, as such discrimination would be
unconstitutional. It is further submitted that, the act of
respondent Nos.2 and 4 thereby denying the claim of
petitioner for appointment from project affected category,
she being married daughter of his father cannot be
accepted, same being discriminatory in the light of
provisions of Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned
counsel submits that, the impugned action of respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Ms. Savita Samvedi And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 30 January, 1996
The Division Bench relying upon the Judgment
of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in
Writ Petition No.6056/2011 in the case of [State of
Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Medha Prashant Parkhe], decided
on October 26, 2010, and also relying upon the exposition
of the Calcutta High Court in the case of [Smt. Usha Singh
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.]2, in the case of Manjula Vs.
State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of
Cooperation Bangalore & anr.3, in the case of R.Jaymma Vs.
Karnataka Electricity Board & anr.4, in the case of U.
Arulmozhi Vs. The Director of School Education5, in the case
of Savita Samvedi & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.6 and in
the case of Dr.Mrs.Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs. Kashirao
Rajaram Savai & Anr.7 taken a view that, appointment on
compassionate ground cannot be denied to the daughter
merely because she is married.
Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs Kashirao Rajaram Sawai And Another on 11 October, 1985
The Division Bench relying upon the Judgment
of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in
Writ Petition No.6056/2011 in the case of [State of
Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Medha Prashant Parkhe], decided
on October 26, 2010, and also relying upon the exposition
of the Calcutta High Court in the case of [Smt. Usha Singh
Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.]2, in the case of Manjula Vs.
State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Department of
Cooperation Bangalore & anr.3, in the case of R.Jaymma Vs.
Karnataka Electricity Board & anr.4, in the case of U.
Arulmozhi Vs. The Director of School Education5, in the case
of Savita Samvedi & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.6 and in
the case of Dr.Mrs.Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs. Kashirao
Rajaram Savai & Anr.7 taken a view that, appointment on
compassionate ground cannot be denied to the daughter
merely because she is married.
C. B. Muthamma vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 September, 1979
The Supreme Court in the
case of C.B.Muthamma Vs. Union of India8, while
considering Rule 8 [2] of the Indian Foreign Service
2 2003 [2] L.L.N. 554
3 2005 [104] F.L.R. 271
4 1993 [I] L.L.J. 587
5 [2006] 2 L.W.324 [Mad.]
6 [1996] 2 SCC 380
7 [1987] 2 SCC 278
8 1979 [4] SCC 260
::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 20/10/2015 00:01:00 :::
10843.2014 WP.odt
9
[Conduct & Discipline] Rules, 1961, in para 4 to 7 held thus: