This page contains notable observations of different Courts of India and abroad which is a settled law now.
R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid, [(1963) 3 SCR 22]: Supreme Court of India When is an action and judgement in rem and personam Roman lawyers recognised a right either as a jus in rem or a jus in personam. According to its literal meaning “jus in rem” is a right in respect of […]
When is an action and judgement in rem and personam Read More »
Rajiv Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [MANU/PH/1778/2010]: Punjab and Haryana High Court It is not for the Courts to undertake an exercise of equating one qualification with the other 13. On a broader principle also the petitioners would not be able to succeed. It is not for the Courts to undertake
Sri Kari Thimmarayaswamy Education Society vs. State of Karnataka [MANU/KA/0364/1990]: Supreme Court of India It is not necessary that the Government should demonstrate the basis for enhancement of the educational qualification 16. We are not concerned with a similar situation in the instant cases. What we are concerned with is the legality of the enhancement
The Inspector General of Prisions, Tiruchirapalli District vs. P. Marimuthu [MANU/TN/0700/2016]: Madras High Court Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive 33. In State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, reported in MANU/SC/0742/2012 : (2012) 9 SCC 545, the Hon’ble Supreme
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002]: Supreme Court of India A reservation that is permissible by protective mode, by making it 100 percent would become discriminatory and impermissible 134. A reservation that is permissible by protective mode, by making it 100 percent would
Sher Singh and Ors. vs. Dinesh Singh Charan and Ors [MANU/RH/1364/2017]: Rajasthan High Court The selection of the most suitable persons is essential in order to maintain excellence and the standard of teaching in the institution 34. Article 21A has been added by amending our Constitution with a view to facilitate the children to get
R.K. Garg vs. Union of India [(1981) 4 SCC 675]: Supreme Court of India There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles 7. Now while considering the constitutional
There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute Read More »
Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited & another vs. Union of India & others [(2010) 5 SCC 388]: Supreme Court of India Determination of whether a judgement will have prospective or retrospective effect 34. It is pertinent to note that while interpreting the judgment, public interest should be taken into consideration. In Managing Director, ECIL,
Determination of whether a judgement will have prospective or retrospective effect Read More »
Ch. Papanna vs. The Personnel Manager, State Bank [1995 (2) ALT 358]: Andhra High Court Over-qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointment 17. Thus, it is manifest from the above decisions that where over-qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointment and if the candidature is rejected on
Over-qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointment Read More »
M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others [(2007) 8 SCC 264]: Supreme Court of India Principles to be noted in matter of public appointments 24. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments, the following principles are to be followed: (1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure
Principles to be noted in matter of public appointments Read More »
