In order to be exempted from making provision for reservation in favour of a person with disability, notification in the Official Gazette has to be duly published by the appropriate Government.
(1) The petitioner herein (Abhay Kumar Kapre) had filed Writ Petition No. 5308/2014 before this Court claiming quashment of advertisement dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to relaxation of age in Clause 4(ii) & Clause 4(xi) and claiming age relaxation. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 9.9.2015 […]
It seems to us that it would be an incorrect approach to start this process by considering the re-appointment or renewal of existing Government Counsels since that would dilute, nay, dissolve the discretion of the Government to appoint advocates whom they find trustworthy.
Likewise, in the matter of Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and others, the Supreme Court has held that delay and laches is one of the factors that requires to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court in a quo warranto proceeding should be slow to pronounce upon the matter unless there is a clear infringement of the law.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that Teacher of fully aided school is an employee within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and entitled for gratuity.
Accordingly, it is held that respondent No. 1 High Court of Chhattisgarh is absolutely justified in holding respondent No. 2 to be eligible for the purpose of recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and rightly selected / appointed him on the said post {District Judge (Entry Level)} as a member of Higher Judicial Service.
Seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing 5th respondent Sanjay Kumar Patil to show cause under what authority he continues to hold the Office of Vice Chancellor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur, Ashish Kumar Sharma – the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition.
A conjoint reading of Sections 13, 15 and 17 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 makes it amply clear that the powers of Inspectors under the said Act are not adjudicatory and the Inspectors are not authorized to undertake the exercise of adjudication of the disputes, particularly the disputes regarding application and interpretation of the Standing Orders
Distinguished issue that has cropped up for consideration is whether this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can draw equivalence of two educational qualifications and declare equivalence, that too after initiation of recruitment process.
