Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.33 seconds)Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
Shankarsan Das
(supra) cautions that the State has no licence to act in an arbitrary
manner.
Union Of India & Ors vs Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr on 30 July, 2003
48. There were no serious grievances of malpractices in Rajesh
P.U. (supra) either. In fact, this Court held that “applying a
unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the
selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of
such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference
to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing
to be carried away by irrelevancies giving a complete go-by to
Page 30 of 38
contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of
proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably
to meet the situation”. It was concluded that “the competent
authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and
unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly
unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found
too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at
stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational”
(emphasis supplied by us).
Sachin Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection ... on 3 March, 2021
49. Paragraph 35 of the decision in Sachin Kumar (supra) has
been relied on. There, this Court held that:
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
57. The answer to the issue of the appellants urging new grounds
need not detain us for long. We have not looked into the counter
affidavit of the appellants but have confined our attention to the note
of the PCCF dated 4th July, 2016, containing the reasons based on
which cancellation of the select list was proposed. The law laid down
Page 36 of 38
in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) admits of no dispute; however, the
said decision has no application because of what has been
immediately observed by us.
State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
Noticing the
decisions in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra), Shankarsan Dash
(supra) as well as other decisions on the point, this Court further held
that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the superior court
in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of
any writ in the absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or
arbitrariness on the part of the authority, and each case has to be
considered on its own merit. Examining the point as to whether the
impugned action of the respondent-State lacked bona fide, this Court
answered in the negative. Finally, this is what was observed:
Jai Singh Dalal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 18 December, 1992
25. Close on the heels of the above decision, a three-Judge Bench
in Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana13 had the occasion to
observe:
Jitendra Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 December, 2007
28. It has not escaped our notice that the decision in Jitendra
Kumar (supra) has been doubted in All India Railway
Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar15 on the point as to
whether Wednesbury unreasonableness has been replaced by the
15
(2010) 6 SCC 614
Page 14 of 38
doctrine of proportionality.