Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani And Ors vs District And Sessions Judge, Nagpur And ... on 11 February, 2000
In Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani's case (3 supra) the Apex Court held thus:
H.D. Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 10 September, 1985
9. Hence, the only question that remains to be considered is whether possession of higher educational qualification is a disqualification. In the notification issued by the Bank the educational qualification prescribed for appointment for the post of Messenger is a pass in 8th class, but must be a non-matriculate. There cannot be any dispute and rather no one can contend that the Bank cannot prescribe a particular qualification as the minimum qualification, choose the mode of recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made. But, as in the instant case, a policy decision was taken by the Bank that persons with minimum qualification of a pass in 8th class, and a maximum qualification of non-matriculation alone would be eligible for consideration. Whether such restriction of maximum qualification to only non-matriculates is reasonable restriction and can be allowed to sustain on the touch stone of Article 16 of the Constitution, where equality of opportunity in matters of public employment is guaranteed, is the point to be answered. The Apex Court in H.D. Singh's case (1 supra) while considering an identical issue held thus:
Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. vs A. Unnikrishnan And Anr. on 30 November, 1993
The decision in KERALA SOLVENT EXTRACTIONS's case (6 supra) relied on the by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank was rendered on a different set of facts. In that case, one of the qualification for appointment as Badli workman was eighth standard, and the respondent-workman who was over qualified, obtained employment by suppressing the truth and under those circumstances, the Apex Court set aside the order directing re-instatement of the workman. In the present case, there is no violation of any law or suppression or misrepresentation of facts, at the most, there is a breach of terms of the notification inviting applications. The Bank has produced nothing to show that the classification made is reasonable or is based on a rational having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, except stating that it is a policy decision taken by the Bank.
District Collector, Anantapur And ... vs K. Sujatha on 13 April, 2001
13. Though in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Papanna's case (7 supra) holding that rejection of the candidature on the ground of over-qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and certainly a disqualification, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao's case (2 supra) and also in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in P.S. Bhagavan's case (4 supra) and the subsequent Division Bench judgment in District Collector, Ananthapur's case (5 supra), the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Y. Srinivasa Rao vs J. Veeraiah And Ors on 27 April, 1992
13. Though in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Papanna's case (7 supra) holding that rejection of the candidature on the ground of over-qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and certainly a disqualification, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao's case (2 supra) and also in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in P.S. Bhagavan's case (4 supra) and the subsequent Division Bench judgment in District Collector, Ananthapur's case (5 supra), the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Pippalla Surya Bhagavan vs Member Secretary, Apseb, Hyderabad And ... on 16 July, 1999
13. Though in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Papanna's case (7 supra) holding that rejection of the candidature on the ground of over-qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and certainly a disqualification, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao's case (2 supra) and also in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in P.S. Bhagavan's case (4 supra) and the subsequent Division Bench judgment in District Collector, Ananthapur's case (5 supra), the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Ch. Papanna vs The Personnel Manager, State Bank Of ... on 27 September, 1995
13. Though in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Papanna's case (7 supra) holding that rejection of the candidature on the ground of over-qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and certainly a disqualification, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao's case (2 supra) and also in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in P.S. Bhagavan's case (4 supra) and the subsequent Division Bench judgment in District Collector, Ananthapur's case (5 supra), the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
1