Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... vs K.G.S. Bhatt And Anr. on 29 August, 1989
6.In Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and
another v. K.G.S.Bhatt and another [1989 (4) SCC 635],
the Apex Court deprecated a policy formulated by a public
authority which did not provide any promotional avenues at all
and resulted in stagnation of employees in a particular cadre.
Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 November, 1989
In Dr.O.Z Hussain v. Union of India and others [AIR 1990
SC 311] also the issue of stagnation was taken up by the Apex
Court and it was held that provisions for promotion increase
efficiency of public service and stagnation without promotion
W.P.(C).Nos.33397& 33919/16
6
is anathema to a conducive working atmosphere.
State Of Tripura & Ors vs K.K. Roy on 12 December, 2003
The decisions
in State of Tripura and others v. K.K.Roy [2004 KHC 870]
and Food Corporation of India and others v. Parashotam
Das Bansal and others [2008 KHC 4183] are also relied on
for purpose of contending that stagnation in a particular post
has been frowned upon by the Apex Court. Relying on these
decisions, it is argued that the literate petitioners are perfectly
suited to carry out the functions of last grade employees which
also involves only menial duties.
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Parashotam Das Bansal & Ors on 5 February, 2007
The decisions
in State of Tripura and others v. K.K.Roy [2004 KHC 870]
and Food Corporation of India and others v. Parashotam
Das Bansal and others [2008 KHC 4183] are also relied on
for purpose of contending that stagnation in a particular post
has been frowned upon by the Apex Court. Relying on these
decisions, it is argued that the literate petitioners are perfectly
suited to carry out the functions of last grade employees which
also involves only menial duties.
N. Abdul Basheer & Ors. Etc. Etc vs K.K. Karunakaran & Ors on 5 May, 1989
In N.Abdul Basheer
and others v. K.K.Karunakaran and others [1989 Supp (2)
SCC 344] the Apex Court held that the prescription of a ratio
dividing the quota of promotion between graduates and non-
graduates, who constitute part of the same cadre is violative of
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been
further held as follows:-
Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010
Roop Chand Adlakha And Ors vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 26 September, 1988
4.In Roop Chand Adlakha and others v. Delhi Development
Authority and others [1989 Supp (1) SCC] the Apex Court
held that where differences in educational qualification are
relied upon to give preferential treatment to one class of
candidates as against the other the question whether the
classification is reasonable or not must necessarily depend
upon the facts of each case and the circumstances obtaining at
the relevant time. It is further stated that the process of
classification would be valid if it recognizes a pre-existing
inequality and acts to do away with the effects of such an
equality. But classification, if any, should be relevant to the
goal sought to be achieved by the law which seeks to classify.