Petitioner was elected on a reserved seat based on false representation of holding a validity certificate for OBC category, leading to voiding of her election.
Decision of Scrutiny Committees upheld, asserting there was no illegality in interpretation of eligibility norms and without an official equivalence certificate, Petitioner cannot be deemed eligible to teach Social Science under Article 226 of Constitution.
Facts and issues of present petitions are identical and judgment from Nagpur Bench applies directly to them hence, Respondents are directed to declare results of Petitioners within certain period.
This case highlights a situation where, due to Respondents non-compliance with final decree from January 8, 2007, Petitioner was compelled to file for execution, which was dismissed without fault on their part hence, exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution is warranted to rectify situation.
Impugned order adjudging Petitioners bid as non-responsive is set aside and Petitioner is held eligible for opening of financial bid.
Transfer is upheld as a necessary administrative measure hence, no reason to interfere with impugned order of transfer.
State Commissions order from September 14, 2016, is upheld with modification, with revised interest rate of 9% per annum, instead of previously awarded 6%, along with directive for payment of remaining balance to Petitioner.
Respondent has a vacation home and financial support from her sons in America, indicating she is not in a dire situation hence, three-month period for Respondents to vacate the premises is reasonable.
Form SVLDRS 3 dated 12 March 2020 set aside directing Respondent 2 to determine correct amount considering declaration filed under Litigation category.
High Court, sitting at principal seat, will not proceed to examine merits of petition hence, Office shall forthwith transmit writ petition, to Circuit Bench at Kolhapur for disposal in accordance with law.
Court would likely exercise discretion to prevent eviction without proper legal processes, allowing MCGM to seek possession through appropriate legal channels.
Impugned order did not reveal any errors justifying interference under Article 226 of Constitution; thus, deemed conveyance order is upheld as lawful.
CIDCOs statutory function and possibility of future transfer do not justify denial of legal and statutory rights during period it remained the employer in control.
If trial Court sends the recorded evidence and its findings to First Appellate Court, First Appellate Court should decide appeal expeditiously.
Election process must be undertaken by Respondent No. 1 within two months, even pending modification applications and Respondent No. 2 will evaluate any modification requests based on their merits.
Court criticizes a government resolution that restricts the timeline for submitting caste validity certificates for Scheduled Tribe candidates and such discrepancies violate the principle of equal benefits in reservation policy thus, denying admission based on technicalities is deemed unjust.
Petitioners true date of birth is 26.09.1972 and rejection of his request contradicts both regulatory mandates and established legal principles hence, impugned communications set aside directing Respondents to correct date of birth of Petitioner in service records.
Court cannot rewrite policy or compel MIDC to abandon transparent online system in favour of an ad hoc, offline seniority list which has no legal sanction.
Decision of Respondent No.4 rejecting Petitioners’ proposal for approval of a new D. Pharm course for academic year 2025-2026 is set aside and proposal of Petitioners shall stand remitted to Respondent No. 4 for fresh consideration.
Agreement between Model Mills and Union is not considered an industry-wide agreement under Industrial Law, as it solely pertains to that specific establishment and conditions of service have been altered by rules in accordance with Section 14 of Act.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer