Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(4)SCALE690; (1994)2SCC200
ORDER1. Mr. M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India, which was not represented on the previous occasion when we passed the order dated 26th November, 1993, submits that the Medical Council of India does not have the infra-structure to conduct the examination. This is not denied by the other learned Counsel. In view of this we have to make necessary alternative arrangements. We hereby direct that from out of the list of students admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course as furnished by the State of Karnataka, we had earlier restricted the number of admission to 180, out of the remaining 200 the petitioner institution shall admit all the students listed therein.2. The remaining 200 seats shall be filled from out of the list prepared by the Director General of Health services, Ministry of Health, Government of India for filling up the 15 per cent All India Quota. It is open to the petitioner institution to admit the students who had obtained 50 per cent and abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ878SC
1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the termination of the petitioner/employee was by way of punishment and yet the provisions of Article 311 were not complied with inasmuch as no enquiry was held and the petitioner's services were terminated by giving him only one month's notice. While, however, reinstating the employee in the service, the Tribunal denied him the back wages. No reasons what-so-ever have been given for denial of the back wages. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this was a fit case where full back wages should have been given to the employee. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, UOI, was unable to adduce any reason for the denial of the back wages. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct that the employee shall stand reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits including back wages for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)2SCC573
ORDER1. Though Respondents 2, 3 and 5 have been served, none is appearing. Dasti service was ordered by this Court. An affidavit has been filed showing that Respondents 1 and 5 have refused to receive the notice. The service of notice is complete. We have heard Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Special leave granted.2. The High Court in the impugned order has stated that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere and reduce the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The statutory notification dated 13-3-1985 No. DLA Niti-63/85 712 was issued by the Governor exercising the power under first proviso to Section II of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereunder the power of the Government has been delegated to the officers notified thereunder. Clause (i) says that the Collector/Deputy Commissioner of the District in such class of cases where the total compensation does not exceed rupees five lakhs is the competent officer to approve the market value t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC205
P.B. Sawant and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. We find that in the present case, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail of the respondent-accused. The learned Sessions Judge had given cogent reasons for passing the order in question by pointing out that the accused had threatened the material witnesses in question including the complainant, on two occasions. On the first occasion, an application was filed for cancellation of their bail. It was, however, rejected. Within another few days a second attempt was made to threaten the witnesses. That was inquired into both by the Station House Officer as well as by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. They found substance in the complaints. Hence it was the State which moved the Court for cancellation of the bail relying upon the verified report of the police officers. The learned Sessions Judge took into consideration all the relevant facts and came to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(2)SCC731
K. Ramaswamy and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dated September 25, 1992 restraining the State Government of Himachal Pradesh from enforcing the Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992. Shri Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for respondents has contended, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. State of T.N.1 that the Court is justified in issuing direction not to implement the provisions of the Act. He seeks to contend on merits with regard to the validity of the Act and also right to continue the management of the forest. We decline to go into the merits since admittedly the matter is part-heard and pending disposal in the High Court. Any observation by this Court would have effect on the rights and interest of either party. Suffice to state that this Court while exercising the power under Article 142 suspended the operation of Gudalur J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(1)KLT651(SC); (1994)IILLJ888SC; 1994(1)SCALE631
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. Special leave granted.2. The appellants challenges the order dated 4thy June, 1993 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 269 of 1993. The proceedings relate to the empanelling of 'badli' workmen. One of the conditions for eligibility for appointment was that the educational qualification of the candidates should not be more than the 8th Standard. Respondent produced a certificate issued by the School authorities to the effect that he had passed the 7th Standard on 15.5. 1974. The purpose of this was to show that his qualifications were not more than the 8th Standard. He, accordingly, succeeded in having himself empanelled as a 'badli' workman. On receiving certain complaints that the respondent had secured employment by suppression of truth and by false representation, the appellant issued a show-cause notice to the respondent asking as to why action should not be taken against him under the standing orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR425]; JT1993(6)SC544a; (1994)IILLJ547bSC; 1993(4)SCALE546a; 1994Supp(3)SCC298; [1993]Supp3SCR845; 1994(1)LC122(SC)
N. Venkatachala, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated June 11, 1979 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by which Representation Petition No. 507 of 1977 in which retrospective regularisation of the services of promotee Health Inspectors in the cadre of Health Inspectors in Andhra Pradesh Public Health Subordinate Service had been questioned by direct recruit Health Inspectors in that very cadre, is dismissed.2. The factual context which furnishes the background in which this appeal needs consideration and decision, warrants mention at the outset.3. During the years 1958 to 1962 Respondent-2 the Director of Medical & Health Services, Andhra Pradesh appointed the appellants and a few others in the Andhra Pradesh Public Health Subordinate Service (APPHSS) on a temporary basis since all of them had successfully completed Sanitary Inspector's Course in Osmania Medical College. Similarly, during the years 1961 to 1969 Respondent-2 appointed Respondents 4 to 121 who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994(68)FLR219]; JT1993(6)SC537; (1995)ILLJ1055SC; 1993(4)SCALE559; (1994)1SCC624; [1993]Supp3SCR855; 1994(1)LC241(SC)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The appellants joined the clerical cadre of the respondent-bank the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates sometime between 1974 and 1977. As the bank felt the paucity of finding Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribe members to man its managerial Cadres, it issued a Circular No. 386 dated 30th May, 1978 inviting Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe employees working in the clerical cadres to appear at the test for selection of Management Trainees. In response to this circular the appellants appeared at the test and were selected as Management Trainees, intimation whereof was conveyed to them by the letter dated 30th October, 1978. While giving the intimation of their selection as Management Trainees, the said letter conveyed the terms and conditions which would apply to them. The relevant terms and conditions with which we are concerned have been set out in paragraph 1 as under :PAY & ALLOWANCES: Your pay and allowances will be as under : -- First Year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(2)SCC732
A.M. Ahmadi and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the effect of the order dated September 23, 1993 passed by a Division Bench comprising the learned Chief Justice and Mr Justice N.K. Batabyal is to nullify the earlier order passed by a Division Bench comprising the acting Chief Justice (as she then was) and Mr Justice S.N. Mullick, dated June 21, 1993. We think that the grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is right that the Division Bench headed by the learned Chief Justice could not have nullified the order of the earlier Division Bench even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that it had the effect of the impinging on the order of April 8, 1993. In case of the kind, the proper course was to move an application for review before the Bench which passed the order of June 21, 1993 or before anyone of the Judges available if the rules of the High Court permitted the matter be placed before a Single Judge, w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC595; JT1993(6)SC524; 1993(4)SCALE564; (1994)1SCC175; [1993]Supp3SCR866; 1994(1)LC119(SC)
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab for setting aside an order dated 18.12.1992 passed by the High Court on writ applications, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, Renuka Singla, and respondent No. 2, Savita Gera, directing to admit respondent No. 1 against the seat reserved for candidates belonging to backward areas which had fallen vacant as a result of withdrawal of one Sanjiv Goyal from the B.D.S. Course and to admit respondent No. 2, after creating an additional seat on compassionate ground.2. The respondents aforesaid appeared at the Pre-Medical Test conducted in May 1992. In the merit list of candidates belonging to backward areas, the position of respondent No. 1 was at serial No. 9 whereas that of respondent No. 2 was at serial No. 10. There is no dispute that in the application form which had been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 for the aforesaid Test, no claim was made on her behalf for admission against a seat reserved for...
Tag this Judgment!