Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Sukhdev Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 April, 2013
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the decision
rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal is erroneous in terms
of the decision, inasmuch as it is one conflict with the law laid by the
Apex Court in Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev Singh (supra). The
Tribunal's decision is therefore liable to be visited in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do so.
The question of moulding relief in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India or while exercising supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is fundamentally aimed at
rendering justice on the given set of facts, in accordance with law. On
the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are
entitled to reliefs as are ordered hereunder.
U.P. Jal Nigam & Others vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Others on 31 January, 1996
Thus
noticing that the three-Judge Bench had approved the ratio of Dev
Dutt (supra), it is profitable to note that Dev Dutt (supra) was
rendered noticing U.P. Jal Nigam (supra) as well as the decision in
Union of India v. S.K. Goel (2007) 14 SCC 641.
Union Of India & Anr vs Major Bahadur Singh on 22 November, 2005
It is also noticed in Sukhdev Singh (supra)
that in the backdrop of the apparent conflict between U.P. Jal Nigam
(supra) and Major Bahadur Singh (supra) there was conflict of
opinion between different judgments rendered by the Tribunals.
Union Of India & Anr vs S.K. Goel & Ors on 12 February, 2007
Thus
noticing that the three-Judge Bench had approved the ratio of Dev
Dutt (supra), it is profitable to note that Dev Dutt (supra) was
rendered noticing U.P. Jal Nigam (supra) as well as the decision in
Union of India v. S.K. Goel (2007) 14 SCC 641.
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2008
In Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal (supra), the Apex Court relied on
Sukhdev Singh (supra) and also the decision of the three-Judge
Bench of the Apex Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of
India, (2009) 16 SCC 146. On the facts of that case, it was ultimately
noted that the claim of the Appellant therein could be answered by
6
ordering that the "good" entries be treated as "very good" entries on
the facts and circumstances of that case.
Saroj Kumar vs U.O.I & Ors on 18 August, 2015
8. We have considered the decision in Saroj Kumar Vs. Union of India
& Others, 2015 AIR SCW 4853 cited by the learned Deputy Advocate
General. That was a case where representation was considered and
rejected as against the ACR. Obviously, we see that such rejection of
representation was on a ground referable to the sustainability
otherwise, of objection of the ACR entries. But, in the case in hand,
the rejection of the representation has been done for a reason which
could be treated as groundless; that is to say, the authority did not
have the power to consider the objections to the ACR entries.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the decision
rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal is erroneous in terms
of the decision, inasmuch as it is one conflict with the law laid by the
Apex Court in Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev Singh (supra). The
Tribunal's decision is therefore liable to be visited in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do so.
The question of moulding relief in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India or while exercising supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is fundamentally aimed at
rendering justice on the given set of facts, in accordance with law. On
the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are
entitled to reliefs as are ordered hereunder.