Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)
Dr.Hasna Ibrahim vs Union Of India on 6 January, 2025 cites

D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982

9. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj would submit that the requirement of BMI at maximum of 30 Kg/m 2 for appointment to the post of GDMO/Medical Specialist has no rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended that, by imposition of such a condition, there is discrimination between otherwise eligible and meritorious candidates with that of candidates who meet the BMI criterion. It is contended that clause 7 of Ext. P3 excludes meritorious candidates from the purview of appointment on the basis of weight. A more meritorious candidate will be denied WP(C) NO. 29523 OF 2024 : 15 : 2025:KER:97 appointment on the basis of BMI and instead, a less meritorious candidate will be appointed. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130], Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722] and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] in support of his contention. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj also contends that the 'sound health' requirement stipulated under Ext. P1 notification is arbitrary and irrational to the extent it predicates sound health on a direct correlation with BMI. Relying on the Article Sharma A. and Kushner R.F. (2009) a proposed clinical staging system for obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 33,289- WP(C) NO. 29523 OF 2024 : 16 : 2025:KER:97 295 and Apple R. Samuels L.R., Fonnesbeck, C.Schlundt, D.Mulvaney S., Hargreaves, M.Crenshaw, D.Wallston, K.A. And Heerman W.J. (2018) Body mass index and health-related quality of life. Obesity Science & Practice, 4:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2485 - D A Desai - Full Document

Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980

9. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj would submit that the requirement of BMI at maximum of 30 Kg/m 2 for appointment to the post of GDMO/Medical Specialist has no rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended that, by imposition of such a condition, there is discrimination between otherwise eligible and meritorious candidates with that of candidates who meet the BMI criterion. It is contended that clause 7 of Ext. P3 excludes meritorious candidates from the purview of appointment on the basis of weight. A more meritorious candidate will be denied WP(C) NO. 29523 OF 2024 : 15 : 2025:KER:97 appointment on the basis of BMI and instead, a less meritorious candidate will be appointed. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130], Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722] and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] in support of his contention. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj also contends that the 'sound health' requirement stipulated under Ext. P1 notification is arbitrary and irrational to the extent it predicates sound health on a direct correlation with BMI. Relying on the Article Sharma A. and Kushner R.F. (2009) a proposed clinical staging system for obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 33,289- WP(C) NO. 29523 OF 2024 : 16 : 2025:KER:97 295 and Apple R. Samuels L.R., Fonnesbeck, C.Schlundt, D.Mulvaney S., Hargreaves, M.Crenshaw, D.Wallston, K.A. And Heerman W.J. (2018) Body mass index and health-related quality of life. Obesity Science & Practice, 4:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1343 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

9. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj would submit that the requirement of BMI at maximum of 30 Kg/m 2 for appointment to the post of GDMO/Medical Specialist has no rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended that, by imposition of such a condition, there is discrimination between otherwise eligible and meritorious candidates with that of candidates who meet the BMI criterion. It is contended that clause 7 of Ext. P3 excludes meritorious candidates from the purview of appointment on the basis of weight. A more meritorious candidate will be denied WP(C) NO. 29523 OF 2024 : 15 : 2025:KER:97 appointment on the basis of BMI and instead, a less meritorious candidate will be appointed. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj relies on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130], Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722] and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] in support of his contention. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj also contends that the 'sound health' requirement stipulated under Ext. P1 notification is arbitrary and irrational to the extent it predicates sound health on a direct correlation with BMI. Relying on the Article Sharma A. and Kushner R.F. (2009) a proposed clinical staging system for obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 33,289- WP(C) NO. 29523 OF 2024 : 16 : 2025:KER:97 295 and Apple R. Samuels L.R., Fonnesbeck, C.Schlundt, D.Mulvaney S., Hargreaves, M.Crenshaw, D.Wallston, K.A. And Heerman W.J. (2018) Body mass index and health-related quality of life. Obesity Science & Practice, 4:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1821 - A N Ray - Full Document

Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of Women ... on 22 August, 2017

Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj would submit that clause 7 of Ext. P3 is hit by the test of 'manifest arbitrariness' as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shayra Banu v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1] and in Association for Democratic Reforms (Electoral WP(C) NO. 29523 OF 2024 : 17 : 2025:KER:97 Bond Scheme) v. Union of India [(2024) 5 SCC 1].
Supreme Court of India Cites 225 - Cited by 2604 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1   2 Next