Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967
"Generally speaking, an administrative Order confers no justiciable right, but this rule, like all other general rules, is subject to exceptions. This Court has held in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Another, [AIR 1967 SC 1910], that although Government cannot supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, yet, if the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed and these instructions will govern the conditions of service."
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari & Ors on 20 February, 2007
11. More or less in a similar context, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others v. Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari and others [2007 AIR SCW 1321] upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Government in appointing the Graduate Teachers for teaching in Middle School sections run by the local bodies.
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
4. The CAT, by its judgment dated 25.3.1999 dismissed the Original Applications. The CAT held that the petitioners having participated in the examination and interview, cannot turn back and challenge the process of selection. Relying upon Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285], the CAT held that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the modality of selection process after participating in the same.
Union Of India vs K. P. Joseph And Ors on 27 October, 1972
Para 14: The aforesaid ruling has been reiterated in paragraph 9 of the judgment by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.P. Joseph, [(1973) 1 SCC 194], as under:
Marripati Nagaraja & Ors vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 12 October, 2007
Para 9: In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, [JT 2007 (12) SC 407 : (2007) 11 SCR 506 at p.516 SCR] this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1