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.
Provisions requiring prior approval before termination of service of an employee under Act of 1978 and Rules made thereunder are not applicable to minority Institution established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
The focal question falling for consideration is whether Inspector appointed under Section 15(2) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1961 (henceforth ‘Act, 1961’) has power and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the Act, 1961 ?
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed for hearing on office objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. An objection has been raised by the Registry that the writ petition filed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue
The Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development5 formulated scheme for verification of tribal status and held that any application for verification of her tribal status as a scheduled tribe should be carried out by such committee and issued direction for issuance of social caste certificate, their scrutiny.
Thus, on the basis of aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that National Coal Wage Agreement is a settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the ID Act and is binding as provided under Section 18(3) of the ID Act and having force of law and to continue to remain in force unless the same is altered/modified or substituted by another settlement.
HC held that Policy of Compassionate appointment excluding married daughter for consideration is a retrograde policy of Welfare State and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
Newspaper employee/its union are competent to invoke Section 27 of the Working Journalist Act, 1955 for the amount due including for recommendation of Wage Board accepted by Government of India.
In the matter of State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another1 , it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that gratuity and pension are not bounty and it is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property.
Thus, the question involved in the present writ petitions has been considered by the Supreme Court in number of occasions clearly holding that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment and empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed.
