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.
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.
