Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2668
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 18.9.2002 by this Court and said Judgment was challenged in Special Leave Petition by the present appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 13.10.2004 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1416/03, remanded the matter back to this Court in view of the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case of Rahul Sharad Awasthi v. Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and Ors. : 2004(5)BomCR50 . It appears that on 18.9.2002, this Court took a view that Section 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, especially in relation to Section 100A thereof was applicable retrospectively and, therefore, letters patent appeals already filed were not maintainable. This Court, at that time, granted certificate under Article 134, r/w Article 133 of the Constitution of India to the appellants in LPA No. 7/96. In view of the orders dated 13.10.2004 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present appeal has been listed before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3422; JT2001(7)SC335; 2001(6)SCALE69; (2001)7SCC645; 2002(1)SCT234(SC); 2002(1)LC53(SC)
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.12.1989 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, whereunder the claim of the first respondent came to be allowed with a direction that the case of the first respondent and other similarly situated students, who applied for the Post-graduate course in the Goa Medical Colleges in terms of the 1998 Rules, shall be considered keeping in view that the residency requirement as contained in Rule III 1(iii) is directory. The effect of the said direction is to, in substance, dispense with or doing away with the eligibility requirement envisaging ten years residency in the State of goa in the matter of selection of the candidates for admission to the Post-graduate courses in Medicine and MDS for the academic year 1999-2000. The relevant portion of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Post-Graduate Degree Courses of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goa Rules 1998') reads as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR164; 2008(6)BomCR789; (2008)110BOMLR2621; 2009(2)MhLj56
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the orders dated 26/3/1999 and the order dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-1 collectively) be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.2. By the orders impugned in this petition, the petitioner challenges the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from services. This penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, Dy. Director (Vigilance), Government of Goa. In review petition, being Review Petition No. 5/99 which was filed by the petitioner before the Governor of Goa, the Governor of Goa has, by his order dated 12.10.1999 modified the punishment of dismissal from service and substituted it by compulsory retirement.3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Asst. Director of Transport, Transport Department of Government of Goa. He joined the services in 1975 as Assist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR184; 2007(3)BomCR791; (2007)109BOMLR1089; 2007(4)MhLj475
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court to challenge the legality and propriety of G.R. dated 29.7.2006 and G.R. dated 25.11.2005 as described in prayer Clause (b) and for a further mandamus to withdraw the said G.Rs. The G.Rs pertain to the revised criteria for regularising posts other than teachers in the private partial/whole time granted Secondary, Higher Secondary Schools, Classes of Higher Secondary/Junior Colleges, Military schools in the State of Maharashtra. The G.R. of 29th July, 2006 is the revised criteria for similar posts. As the matter pertained to creation of post under the provisions of MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder, we had issued notice to the State Government as to why considering Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the English translations thereof were not available, as prima facie the said G.Rs were an exercise in subordinate legislation. Under Article 348(1)(b), the authoritative text of all Bills, ame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Whether it is open to the department to prescribe a certain percentage of quota between degree holders and diploma holders in the matter of promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the Assistant Engineer is the question which is raised in the present petition at the instance of the petitioners.2. The petitioners are working as Junior Engineers in the Electrical Department of the Administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The petitioners are the diploma holders in Electrical Engineering and are serving with respondent No. 1 since 1983. The post of Junior Engineers comprises of diploma holders as well as degree holders. The graduate engineers are those who have attended a five year Degree Course in Engineering and obtained the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) whereas diploma holders are those who have attended a three year diploma course in Engineering.3. So far as the post of Junior Engineer is concerned, the same is Assistant Engineer (E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT755
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Courts in India have often traversed questions relating to the principle of equality and affirmative action. This constant engagement with affirmative action policies has not only raised questions relating to their validity and reach, but also crucial questions about the beneficiaries of such policies. This petition raises one such short, yet significant question.2. The petitioner avers that she is an originally listed Delhi Scheduled Caste (hereafter 'SC') candidate and appeared for the LLB entrance examination conducted by the first respondent ('the University') on 20.06.2004 She was at No. 118 in the SC category ranking and it is stated that she could not obtain admission in the course due to inclusion of ineligible SC candidates belonging to States/ Union territories (UTs) other than Delhi. It is alleged that by virtue of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India and notifications issued under those provisions, only Delhi listed scheduled caste candid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3127; JT2006(8)SC1; 2006(8)SCALE257; (2006)7SCC1
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.Background1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge amendments made in the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the RP Act', 1951') through Representation of People (Amendment) Act 40 of 2003 which came into force from 28th August, 2003. By the said Amendment Act 2003, the requirement of 'domicile' in the State Concerned for getting elected to the Council of States is deleted which according to the petitioner violates the principle of Federalism, a basic structure of the Constitution.In the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the RP Act, 1951 by which Open Ballet System is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of 'secrecy' which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter's freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the Constitution and the subject matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)MhLj242
S.B. Mhase, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6597 of 2007 has filed the Writ Petition in respect of various proceedings initiated under the Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act. Most of the annexures, including the impugned order in the said matters, are in Marathi. The petitioner prepared the Writ Petition and went for the purpose of filing the Writ Petition. However, the petitioner was told by the Registry that unless all annexures or, in any case, the impugned order was translated from Marathi to English, the Petition would not be entertained.2. According to the petitioner, the non acceptance of the Petition because the annexures are not translated into English was an act contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Registry brought to the notice of the petitioner the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2006 delivered by the High Court (Rebello & Sawant, JJ.) wherein it has been declared that the proviso to Rule 2(i) of Chapter XVII ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Naresh Patil, J. 1. In these two petitions, identical question is involved as to whether a migrant from the State of Maharashtra to Union Territory of Daman and Diu would be entitled to claim the same caste status as was available to him in the State of Maharashtra. The question raised being identical in both petitions, we are disposing of these petitions finally by this common judgment and order. 2. W.P.No.502/2002 has been filed by one Mr. V.N. Kotiya who was employed as Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department in the administration of Daman and Diu. W.P.No.3891/2003 has been filed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu. Briefly stated, the facts are summarized as under: 3. The petitioner-Kotiya contends that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department of the administration of Daman and Diu. Prior thereto, he was working as In-charge Assistant Engineer under the order passed on 1st October 1997. The respondent No.4Milind R. Ingle was also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR761; 1998(4)BomCR100
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to the Judgement and Order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, bearing No. 1/48/65-RES/(C)-193/Goa/ARNZ/Vol. V dated 8th January, 1993, and quashing the same as also for a declaration that Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited became a deemed Multi-State Co-operative Society registered under the corresponding provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the Central Act'). The first petitioner is the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the second petitioner is the Chairman of the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows.2. The first respondent, Shri G.S. Patil, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa, Goa, had issued a notic...
Tag this Judgment!