Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2012)1SCC269; AIR2012SC225
..... pharmacy or in veterinary science or a graduate in food technology or dairy technology or is a diploma holder in food technology or dairy technology from a university or institution established in india by law or has equivalent qualifications recognised and notified by the central government for the purpose and has received three months' ..... in whole or in parts in food inspection and sampling work, may be eligible for appointment as food inspector, upto the period ending on the 31st march, 1985 and may continue as such if so appointed even though he does not fulfill the qualifications laid down in clauses (a) to (c)].provided also that ..... inspectors and others who possess the requisite qualifications may be given appointment to the posts of food inspector so that the provisions of the prevention of food adulteration act and the rules are properly implemented.5. dr. manish singhvi, learned additional advocate general appearing for the state of rajasthan, submitted that section 9 of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC315; 2009(14)SCALE447; 2010(1)LC149(SC)
..... s cause of action or defendant's defence depends. what particulars could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. it is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish ..... of action or the defendant's defence depends. what particulars could be said to be 'material facts' would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. it is, however, absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish the ..... the case of lakshmi chandra sen and ors. v. a.k.m. hassan uzzaman and ors. : (1985) 4 scc 689, this court while discussing the scope of section 23(3) of the representation of peoples act, 1950, has stated:section 23(3) of the act of 1950 also points in the same direction. under that provision, no amendment, transposition or deletion of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC790; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)224; 2002(4)BomCR216; [2002(92)FLR901]; JT2002(1)SC526; 2002(1)SCALE491; (2002)2SCC712; [2002]1SCR636; 2002(1)SCT1052(SC); 2002(2)SLJ308(SC)
..... framework of the law within which the events took place are noted. the university of goa was established in 1984 by the goa university act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the act provides for the management and running of the university by statutes framed under sections 22 and 23, ordinances under section 24 and ..... 10 years cumulative experience of teaching and post doctoral research. since he had obtained a doctorate degree in november 1985, the university also considered his application and called him for an interview in september 1985 though according to a strict interpretation of the eligibility criteria the respondent no. 5 was not qualified. finally ..... indr. kumar bar das v. utkal university 1999 (1) scc 453, this court in construing similar eligibility criteria has held (at p .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC619; [1961]3SCR386
..... is anything expressly stated by law or clearly implied which would exclude powers under the agreements and the ordinances, when action has been taken under the statutes. the university act expressly makes the ordinances subject to the statutes, and in case of any clash between them, the ordinances must be made to stand down. further, statute no. ..... had arisen which required intervention immediately. the president of india, in his capacity as visitor and in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 5(2) of the banaras hindu university act, 1915, appointed a committee of enquiry (known as the mudaliar committee) consisting of : dr. a. l. mudaliar (president) 2. mr. m. c. mahajan 3. dr. p. ..... under the agreement or ordinance no. 6 was incompetent. the action of the executive council was characterised as mala fide and a fraud upon the university act and statute no. 30. the high court did not accept any of these contentions. before us, the same points have been urged again, and in reply, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1200; 1986(34)BLJR587; 1986(1)SCALE1239; (1986)3SCC7; 1986(2)SLJ142(SC); 1986(2)LC362(SC)
..... , it does not follow that the post of principal must be treated as equivalent to that of a reader for purposes of section 10(14) of the bihar state universities act, 1976, as amended.9. the result therefore is that the appeal must fail and is dismissed. we however make it clear that the ..... the patna high court dated november 28, 1984 quashing ah order of the vice-chancellor, l.n. mithila university, darbhanga dated february 28, 1984 transferring the respondent dayanand jha by virtue of his powers under section 10(14) of the bihar state universities act, 1976 ('act' for short) from the post of principal, v.s.j. college, rajnagar to the post of reader ..... in r.k. college, madhubani. the high court has however reserved liberty to the university to transfer the respondent to any other college maintained by it.2. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2118; 1999(47)BLJR1568; [1999(82)FLR993]; JT1999(4)SC82; 1999(4)SCALE13; (1999)5SCC683; 1999(2)LC1181(SC)
..... said act defines 'affiliated college' to mean 'educational institution having received privileges of the ..... appointment when the said college became a constituent college of the university.7. in order to decide whether the appellant was eligible for being appointed as principal with effect from 3.10.1985, it is necessary to look at some provisions of the bihar state universities act, 1976 (which governs the lalit narain mithila university) and the statutes framed thereunder. section 2(c) of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR428]; 2007(4)SCALE226; 2007AIRSCW2111; 2007(5)SCC77
..... factual backdrop, the legal questions raised before us are required to be considered. the university is a creature of statute. it was created under the maharishi dayanand university act, 1975 (for short, 'the act'). the said act provides for the regulations making power. the university framed leave regulation. regulation 26(i)(c) deals with extra-ordinary leave, which reads ..... on expiry of the said period of two years, he joined the university again in august 1985. he thereafter prayed for grant of increments in the pay scale during the period he was on extra-ordinary leave. the university referred the matter to the university grants commission, which in terms of its letter dated 10.12.1987 ..... the respondent that the vice- chancellor had been pleased to count his extra-ordinary leave period when he had worked with the university of zambia from 30.11.1983 to 14.08.1985 towards annual increment. it is, however, stated that the said resolution of the executive council and/or the said letter was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1694; JT1995(4)SC5; 1995LabIC2041; 1995(2)SCALE871; (1995)3SCC653; [1995]3SCR572; 1995(3)SLJ18(SC)
..... 9.12.88 by a non speaking order. the said decision is of no avail to the appellants as we are concerned with the relevant provisions of the vikram university act. the aforesaid decision was rendered in the light of an entirely different scheme of statutory provisions governing the controversy between the parties in that case. but that apart, ..... 31(a) was not on the statute book when the respondents 4 & 5 were promoted and therefore their promotions could be treated as valid only from 21st february, 1985 when section 31(a) was enforced. before that date the appellant had already entered the cadre of professors on 11th november, 1984 and therefore he had to be treated ..... at serial no. 14 while respondent no. 4 was placed at serial no. 33. that was presumably because the appellant worked as a promotee reader from 29.6.1985 while respondent no. 4 became reader by direct recruitment later on 13th march, 1986. respondent no. 4 being aggrieved by the said placement in the seniority list filed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)23; AIR2001SC3672; 2001(49)BLJR2089; JT2001(7)SC96; 2001(5)SCALE535; (2001)8SCC179; 2001(4)SCT333(SC); 2001(3)SLJ487(SC)
..... power, but ratifying the action, which has already been taken by the authorities mentioned therein by act of filing the appeals. it has already been noticed that the registrar under section 21 of the punjab universities act 1947 is authorised to represent the university in all legal proceedings, except where there is a decision of the senate to the contrary ..... 220 of 1984 which was decreed by sub-judge 1st class, chandigarh on 27.3.1985 quashing the order of dismissal of her services and she was to be deemed to be in service of the punjab university with all consequential benefits. punjab university through registrar was impleaded as the defendant in the suit.3. in both the matters ..... of the plaintiff in the department of mathematics as lecturer was vacant w.e.f. 28.11.1985, was wrong and bad in law. the plaintiff was to continue in service with consequential benefits. the senate of the university was however, left with the option to take any action in the matter afresh in accordance with law .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1356; JT1992(4)SC12; 1992(1)SCALE839; (1992)3SCC129; [1992]2SCR630; 1992(3)SLJ1(SC); 1992(2)LC411(SC)
..... dr. amrik singh was to be cross-examined by the petitioner. dr. amrik singh as well as sh. r.p. mahendroo, under secretary of the association of indian universities were present in the court and when the suit was called the petitioner filed the application dated 14th october, 1988 wherein he had offered to abide by the statement made ..... -'go and ask c, c knows all about it'. c's statement is an admission.13. in hirachand kothari (dead) by lrs. v. state of rajasthan and anr. :[1985] (supp) scc 17, this court held thus:section 20 is the second exception to the general rule laid down in section 18. it deals with one class of vicarious admissions ..... . kailasam, c.j. (as his lordship then was) and balasubrah-manyam, j. dismissed the letters patent appeal. it was submitted before the division bench that because the oaths act, 1873 has been repealed, what the plaintiff had stated on special oath is not an evidence. the learned single judge who had heard the appeal was confronted with the arguments .....
Tag this Judgment!