Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1638; (1986)IILLJ448SC; 1986(1)SCALE1202; (1986)3SCC292; [1986]2SCR967; 1986(2)SLJ272(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3710 of 1985 filed in the High Court by the first respondent herein. The appeal lies within a narrow compass as the limited question for consideration is whether the extraordinary leave granted to the appellant for the period 24.12.80 to 31.7.83 on the request of the Government of India for his being posted on a teaching assignment in the University of Aden (South Yemen) effected a break in service so as to deprive the appellant his seniority in the Department of Zoology in the D.A.V. College, Kanpur.2. The facts which are not in controversy, of the case, are briefly as set out below.3. On 1.9.49 the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Zoology in a substantive capacity in the D.A.V. College, Kanpur. About six weeks' later i.e. on 12.9.49 the first respondent was also appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology in the same college...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1173; (1986)IILLJ334SC; 1986(1)SCALE998; (1986)3SCC103; [1986]2SCR980; 1986(2)SLJ249(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. The central question in this appeal is whether the impugned order passed by the Railway Board dated March 11, 1972 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, was not in conformity with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the Railway servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. At the hearing on February 13, 1986, learned Counsel for the Union of India took time to enable the Railway Board to reconsider its decision as to the quantum of punishment. At the resumed hearing on March 13, 1986 we were informed by the learned Counsel that there was no question of the Railway Board reconsidering its decision. Arguments were accordingly heard on the question as to whether the impugned order of the Railway Board was sustainable in law. We heard the parties and allowed the appeal by order dated March 13, 1986 directing the Railway Board to hear and decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law in conformity with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the Rules. We now pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)IILLJ506SC; 1986(1)SCALE904; (1986)4SCC12; 1986(2)LC523(SC)
G.L. Oza, J.1 This is a group of matters involving. the identical questions for our consideration We are dealing here with the first i.e. Civil Appeal No. '675/84 which will dispose of all the other matters simultaneously.2 Civil appeal No. 1675 of 1984 arises out of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court on leave granted by this Court. By the impugned Sent dated 16.12.19(sic)3, the High Court disposed of a number of Sons filed by the petitioners who belonged to the subordinate revenue service of the State of Gujarat. It is alleged that from the sub ordinate revenue service (lower division) clerks they could be promoted as Deputy Mamlatdars and the necessary requirement for being promoted as Deputy Mamlatdar, was, passing a qualifying examination? The questions which arose before the High Court in these petitions were :(1) The Deputy Mamlatdars who have passed the lower revenue qualifying examination at the first trial claim seniority over their colleagues who have passed such examinat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1448; 1986(1)SCALE981; 1986Supp(1)SCC740; [1986]2SCR912; 1986(2)LC639(SC); 1986SuppSCC740
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against an Order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court summarily rejecting writ appeals preferred by several students against a common judgment delivered by Justice Rama Jois dismissing the writ petitions filed by them challenging the cancellation of their admission by the Karnataka University. The facts giving rise to these appeals are few and may be briefly stated as follows. 2. R.P. Mathur, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 10610 of 1983 passed Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Raiasthan and applied for admission to the first year of the Engineering Degree course in Shri Dharamsthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology for the academic year 1981-82. Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheswara College of Engineering and Technology is a private Engineering College affiliated to the Karnataka University and admission to the first year of the Engineering...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1973; 1986(1)SCALE922; (1986)3SCC91; [1986]2SCR927; [1986]62STC272(SC); 1986(2)LC631(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the Madras High Court dated 4th April, 1972 in Tax Cases Nos. 158-161 of 1966. These are in respect of assessment under Central Sales. Tax Act, 1956. The assessees in the four tax cases were assessed under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The assessment years involved are 1958-59 to 1961-62. It was found that the assessees had purchased motor spare parts on the basis of the 'C form certificates issued to them under the provisions of the said Act for sale, but instead of selling those, the assessees had used those for their own consumption. The revenue proceeded on the basis that since the goods purchased had not been used for the purposes specified in Section 8(3)(b) of the Act and as recorded in the 'C' form certificates, the assessees had committed offences under Section 10(d) of the Act inasmuch as they had used the goods purchased by them on the basis of 'C' form certificate...
Tag this Judgment!