Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.06 seconds)
D. Nagaraja Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 18 January, 1977 cites

B.R. Shankaranarayana & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 21 January, 1966

The sole question that requires to be determined in these appeals is whether the appellants could maintain that aforesaid writ petitions. It is well settled that though Article 226 of the Constitution in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder, the existence of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the said Article. It is also well established that a person who is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ petition. The constitutional validity of the Abolition Act abolishing all hereditary village offices including the office of the Shambogue or Village Accountant having been upheld by this Court in B.R. Shankanarayana & Ors. v. State of Mysore (supra), and the first preference in the matter of appointment of Village Accountants having been given by Rule 4 of the 1970 Rules to all persons. belonging to the category and class of the appellants who had served as Village Officers, the appellants who did not apply for appointment as Village Accountants in response to the afore- said notification issued by the Recruitment Committee and did not possess the prescribed qualification, could not complain of the unconstitutionality of the 1970 Rules or of the infringement of, Articles 4 and 16 of the Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from out of a larger group who. are similarly circumstanced but do not exclude the laying down of selective tests nor prevent the Government from laying general educational 632 qualifications for the post in question. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the appellants have no right to maintain the aforesaid writ petitions. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Others on 6 December, 1960

In writ peti- tion No. 133 of 1959 entitled Gazula Daseratha Rama Rao v. State of A.P. & Ors. (1) decided on December 6, 1960, this Court held that a law which recognised the custom by which a preferential right to, an office vested in the members of a particular family was not consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution; that a custom which is recognised by law with regard to a heredi- tary office must yield to a fundamental right and_section 6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act/II of 1895 in so far as it made discrimination on the ground of descent only was violative of the' fundamental right under Article 16(2) of the Constitution and was void.. With a view to giving effect to tile principle settled by this decision, the Legislature of the. then State of Mysore comprising the territories the erstwhile States of Mysore and Coorg and certain parts of the erstwhile Stales of Bombay, Hyderabad and Madras enacted the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (Act XIV of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act') abolishing all the hereditary village offices including the office of Shambogue or village Ac- countant created under the Mysore Village Offices Act, 1908. Pursuant to sub-section (3) of section 1 which autho- rise.d the State Government to fix a date for the commence- ment of the Act, the Government of Mysore issued a notifi- cation on January 9, 1963 notifying that the Abolition Act would come into force with effect from February 1, 1963. (1) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 931=A.I.R. 1961 S C. 564. 6--112 SCI/77 628 Shortly after the according of the assent to the Aboli- tion Act by the President on July 8, 1961, the Governor of Mysore flamed rules called the Mysore General Service (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1961 in exercise of the powers vested in him under the proviso to Article 309 of the Con- stitution and other powers enabling him in that behalf. These Rules, as evident from their title, were designed to regulate the recruitment, pay and other conditions of serv- ice of Village Accountants. Rule 10 of the 1961 Rules which was in the nature of a non obstante provision provided for the initial recruitment to the posts of Village Accountants to be made from amongst persons holding the posts of village officers on the date of commencement of those Rules provided that such persons had passed the S.S.L.C. examination or an equivalent examination and their age did not exceed 40 years on the said date. By a proviso which was introduced in the year, 1963, it was provided that in the event of persons satisfying the qualifications mentioned in Rule 7 not being available even after the vacancies are twice advertised, the recruitment should be made from amongst persons holding the posts of village officers who were not more than 50 years of age on the date of commencement of the said Rules and who had passed the Lower Secondary or Vernac- ular Final or equivalent examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 93 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 Next