Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.43 seconds)Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Ors vs M. Selvakumar & Anr on 24 January, 2017
75. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Selvakumar (supra)
indicated yet another reason for reversing the view taken by the Madras
and Delhi High Court that denial of additional attempts to physically
challenged applicants belonging to reserved category did not amount to
treatment of unequals as equals. At paragraph 47, the Apex Court held that
the horizontal reservation and relaxation for physically challenged
applicants for Civil Services Examination, was a matter of governmental
policy and the Government after considering the relevant materials has
extended relaxation and concessions to the physically challenged applicants
belonging to reserved category as well as general category. Therefore, it
was not in the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to
whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether better
policy could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is
absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary,
offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
48. Even if on the basis of the ruling of the Apex Court in K.P.
Varghese vs. ITO- AIR 1981 SC 1922, we were to apply the principle of
contemporena expositio., the result would not be any different. This is
because the practice which emerges from the material on record suggests
that wherever cumulative construction was intended, such intention was
invariably reflected in the rules / executive instructions. Therefore, even
applying the principle of contemporena expositio, it will have to be held that
in the absence of any indication in the rules/executive instructions, the
provisions relating to age relaxations ought to not be construed on cumula-
tive basis.
Deepa E.V vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 April, 2017
In at least two later judgments, i.e., Deepa E.V. vs. Union of
India and ors. - (2017) 12 SCC 680 and Gaurav Pradhan and ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan and ors. - (2018) 11 SCC, the Apex Court clarified
that the ruling in Jitendra Kumar (supra) was in the context of the peculiar
Vishal Parekar 41/56
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 06:37:28 :::
judgment wp-5858-2015 @ 4530-15.doc
statutory scheme and the general observations were accordingly restricted
to the peculiar facts and the peculiar statutory scheme which fell for con-
sideration.
Union On India vs Abdul Imran Khan 62 Wps/4703/2018 Union ... on 23 October, 2018
72. The ruling in Shivbachan Rai (supra) makes it clear that no
arbitrariness or unreasonableness is involved in prescribing limits on the
extent of age relaxations. Rather, arbitrariness or unreasonableness would
result in not prescribing any basis for grant of relaxation or in prescribing
limits on the extent of relaxation. Thus, grant of some open ended age
relaxation or conferment of power of age relaxation without any limits was
impermissible. Adoption of cumulative construction of provisions relating
to age relaxations, in the absence of any indication to this effect in the rules
/ executive instructions might also lead to grant of open ended age
relaxations particularly in case of applicants who are covered under say
three to four categories for which provisions for age relaxations may have
been made. At least, by way of default therefore, it will be unsafe to adopt
cumulative construction in such matters.
Mahesh Gupta & Ors vs Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar & Ors on 30 August, 2007
74. The Apex Court expressly rejected the aforesaid contention by
holding that this was not a case of treating unequals as equals. It was a
Vishal Parekar 47/56
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 06:37:28 :::
judgment wp-5858-2015 @ 4530-15.doc
case of extending concessions and relaxations to physically handicapped
candidates belonging to general category as well as physically handicapped
candidates belonging to OBC category. 'Physically handicapped category' is a
category in itself, a person who is physically handicapped, be it physically
handicapped of a general category or OBC category, suffering from similar
disability has to be treated alike in extending the relaxations and
concessions. Both being provided 7 attempts to appear in Civil Services
Examination, no discrimination or arbitrariness can be found in such
scenario. The Apex Court explained that reserved category candidates
belonging to OBC are separately entitled for benefits which flow from
'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations' being different from
vertical reservations, no discrimination can be found when physically
handicapped candidates of both the categories get equal chances, i.e., 7
chances to appear in the examination. The Apex Court referring to its
earlier ruling in Mahesh Gupta and ors vs. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar
and ors.- (2007) 8 SCC 621 held that a disabled is a disabled. The
question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or
religion ordinarily may not arise. They constitute a special class. This
reasoning is sufficient to reject the contention based upon alleged
treatment of unequals as equals.
Union Of India & Anr vs Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors on 6 July, 2011
In Union of India vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and ors -2 011
(7) SCC 397, the Apex Court has held that engagement of casual labourers
even for considerably long time did not confer any legal right on them for
seeking a writ of mandamus for relaxation of age limit. Besides, the
direction for grant of relaxation in age limit over and above what was
Vishal Parekar 50/56
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 06:37:28 :::
judgment wp-5858-2015 @ 4530-15.doc
stipulated in the recruitment rule/ advertisement was unsustainable.