Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)
Subhas Prasad Sinha vs Dr.Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 cites

Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record ... vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993

19. Though the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association vs. Union of India (1993 )1 Supp. 22 SCC 731 has been cited on behalf of the appellants, a careful perusal shows that the settled principles as to what shall constitute consultation and when it is mandatory do not support the case of the appellants. The judgement approves that prior consultation is mandatory and more so if its violation would affect fundamental rights or fair procedure. In the present case, the dispute whether opinion or advice of the State Government will bind the Chancellor or not is not at all in issue. The controversy is in respect of earlier stage- as to whether the State Government should have adequate opportunity to give its opinion or advice in respect of the appointees. The procedure and details as to who shall be taken into consideration on account of eligibility and who shall be selected out of eligible persons has rightly not been prescribed by the Act because the appointment and consultation process has been left in the hand of high Constitutional functionaries. Nonetheless, like any selection process it must be fair. Consultation with the State Government has been introduced by the Legislature with the 23 obvious aim of making the selection procedure wider in ambit, deeper in contents, transparent and fair. The State Government has the means to render intensive and extensive information and input in course of consultation. The consultation in such important matter and at such high level needs to be effective so that after the Chancellor has made tentative choice on considering the entire information and input given by the State Government, the latter may provide further relevant information, if available, in respect of tentatively selected persons, in order to avoid the risk of Universities being placed in the hands of wrong persons or unsuitable persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 163 - Cited by 385 - J S Verma - Full Document

State Of U. P vs Manbodhan Lal Srivastava on 20 September, 1957

The facts of that case attracted the principle laid down in the case of State of U.P. vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (Supra) which has already been discussed. That judgement and other judgements cited on behalf of appellants and the Universities do not help the stand of the appellants. The provision for consultation u/s 10 (2) of the Act had rightly been held mandatory by the writ court. We find no good reasons to take a different view.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 553 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 6 August, 1974

Learned AAG 1 placed special reliance upon the case of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji V. Governor of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1868 and upon the case of State of U.P. V. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 in support of the proposition that if the statutory 17 provision uses the word "shall" while prescribing a procedure for appointment or for doing of any other important work then such provision should be considered as mandatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 82 - K K Mathew - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963

Learned AAG 1 placed special reliance upon the case of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji V. Governor of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1868 and upon the case of State of U.P. V. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 in support of the proposition that if the statutory 17 provision uses the word "shall" while prescribing a procedure for appointment or for doing of any other important work then such provision should be considered as mandatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 785 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Mohan Lal Tripathi vs District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly And ... on 15 May, 1992

16. The mischief rule is well known as one of the principles of interpretation. If the Legislature changes the earlier law by providing safeguard like consultation with another authority, clearly a mischief or likely mischief in the estimate of the Legislature is sought to be remedied. Such provisions introduced by way of remedy cannot be easily disregarded as trivial or unimportant and, hence, they are generally treated as mandatory. In this context learned AAG 1 has relied upon the following three judgements of the Supreme Court:- 1. (1992) 4 SCC 80 Mohan Lal Tripathi V. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly, 2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 79 - R M Sahai - Full Document

The Administrator Municipalcommittee ... vs Ramji Lal Bagla And Others on 26 July, 1995

20. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Administrator, Municipal Committee, Charkhi Dadri and another Vs Ramjilal Bagla and others (1995) 5 SCC 272 was cited for the well known proposition of law that the word "shall" is not determinative and even where this word is used by the Legislature, generally the provision is treated as directory if consequence of disregard of the provision 24 is not provided. This proposition is not absolute and is only one of the known tests for deciding whether a provision is mandatory or directory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 27 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth And Anr on 19 September, 1977

legal obligation to assist this court by placing all the relevant facts to enable it to take a decision on the issue 28 whether there was consultation as required u/s 10 (2) of the Act and whether the appointment of the appellants was in accordance with law or not. On their behalf it was submitted that in order to decide this issue the writ court rightly went into the question as to what amounts to "consultation" and whether the materials on record and, particularly, the minutes of the Chancellor amount to consultation as understood in law. It was pointed out that in paragraph 43 of judgement under appeal, relevant part of judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. Sankal chand Himatlal Sheth and another reported in AIR 1977 SC 2328 was extracted. That part of the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court refers to several authorities and case laws.
Supreme Court of India Cites 85 - Cited by 54 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 Next