Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
The new dimension given to Art. 14 as regards the guarantee against arbitrariness is rooted in Royappa's case and nurtured and nourished in Mankeka Gandhi's case and International Airport Authorities case, and blossomed in Ajay Hasia's case . The doctrine of classification or grouping founded upon intelligible differentia and its proximate relation to the object sought to be achieved is dethroned by the doctrine of bulwark against arbitrariness. Considering from this perspective the monopoly showered on in-service candidates only under the guise of toning up the efficiency of medical services in the Government hospital excluding totally the candidates possessing primary qualifications of M.S. and M.D. degrees is plainly arbitrary and totally unsustainable. The object of providing super efficient service can be achieved by selecting the cream of the candidates out of service personnel and other candidates by screening all of them through entrance test and filtering the candidates in the order of merit. It cannot be postulated that in-service candidates alone are endowed with efficiency and medical experience and the purported devaluation of the merit of other candidates is devoid of rational approach. Having explicitly indicated the primary qualification of M.D. or M.S. in Rule 5 all candidates possessing such qualifications should have been permitted to apply and compete with others. Instead of indenting the best talent from out of the wide range the impugned rule funneling into selection out of service personnel only is tantamount to denial of participation of a segment in rendering efficient service in the hospitals and denying educational and employment opportunities to them. The presumption that in-service candidates only are competent and efficient is far-fetched and unrealistic and the efficiency can be assessed in the entrance examination and the candidates not raising up-to expectations or standers of merit can be weeded out. Even considered from the perspective of doctrine of classification, the rule does not satisfy the requirements. The two-fold object of enabling the in-service candidates to apply for the course is that they are expected to continue to render efficient service to the poorer sections of the society in the hospital and it is in the nature of imparting training. The object of training can be achieved by deputing service personnel for the said purpose but the admission to a course with a label of training appears to be a camouflage.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
The new dimension given to Art. 14 as regards the guarantee against arbitrariness is rooted in Royappa's case and nurtured and nourished in Mankeka Gandhi's case and International Airport Authorities case, and blossomed in Ajay Hasia's case . The doctrine of classification or grouping founded upon intelligible differentia and its proximate relation to the object sought to be achieved is dethroned by the doctrine of bulwark against arbitrariness. Considering from this perspective the monopoly showered on in-service candidates only under the guise of toning up the efficiency of medical services in the Government hospital excluding totally the candidates possessing primary qualifications of M.S. and M.D. degrees is plainly arbitrary and totally unsustainable. The object of providing super efficient service can be achieved by selecting the cream of the candidates out of service personnel and other candidates by screening all of them through entrance test and filtering the candidates in the order of merit. It cannot be postulated that in-service candidates alone are endowed with efficiency and medical experience and the purported devaluation of the merit of other candidates is devoid of rational approach. Having explicitly indicated the primary qualification of M.D. or M.S. in Rule 5 all candidates possessing such qualifications should have been permitted to apply and compete with others. Instead of indenting the best talent from out of the wide range the impugned rule funneling into selection out of service personnel only is tantamount to denial of participation of a segment in rendering efficient service in the hospitals and denying educational and employment opportunities to them. The presumption that in-service candidates only are competent and efficient is far-fetched and unrealistic and the efficiency can be assessed in the entrance examination and the candidates not raising up-to expectations or standers of merit can be weeded out. Even considered from the perspective of doctrine of classification, the rule does not satisfy the requirements. The two-fold object of enabling the in-service candidates to apply for the course is that they are expected to continue to render efficient service to the poorer sections of the society in the hospital and it is in the nature of imparting training. The object of training can be achieved by deputing service personnel for the said purpose but the admission to a course with a label of training appears to be a camouflage.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
The new dimension given to Art. 14 as regards the guarantee against arbitrariness is rooted in Royappa's case and nurtured and nourished in Mankeka Gandhi's case and International Airport Authorities case, and blossomed in Ajay Hasia's case . The doctrine of classification or grouping founded upon intelligible differentia and its proximate relation to the object sought to be achieved is dethroned by the doctrine of bulwark against arbitrariness. Considering from this perspective the monopoly showered on in-service candidates only under the guise of toning up the efficiency of medical services in the Government hospital excluding totally the candidates possessing primary qualifications of M.S. and M.D. degrees is plainly arbitrary and totally unsustainable. The object of providing super efficient service can be achieved by selecting the cream of the candidates out of service personnel and other candidates by screening all of them through entrance test and filtering the candidates in the order of merit. It cannot be postulated that in-service candidates alone are endowed with efficiency and medical experience and the purported devaluation of the merit of other candidates is devoid of rational approach. Having explicitly indicated the primary qualification of M.D. or M.S. in Rule 5 all candidates possessing such qualifications should have been permitted to apply and compete with others. Instead of indenting the best talent from out of the wide range the impugned rule funneling into selection out of service personnel only is tantamount to denial of participation of a segment in rendering efficient service in the hospitals and denying educational and employment opportunities to them. The presumption that in-service candidates only are competent and efficient is far-fetched and unrealistic and the efficiency can be assessed in the entrance examination and the candidates not raising up-to expectations or standers of merit can be weeded out. Even considered from the perspective of doctrine of classification, the rule does not satisfy the requirements. The two-fold object of enabling the in-service candidates to apply for the course is that they are expected to continue to render efficient service to the poorer sections of the society in the hospital and it is in the nature of imparting training. The object of training can be achieved by deputing service personnel for the said purpose but the admission to a course with a label of training appears to be a camouflage.
1