555win cung cấp cho bạn một cách thuận tiện, an toàn và đáng tin cậy [stefanie the voice germany]
2. In his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellant, S. G. Jaisinghani, challenged the constitutional validity of what has been described as the 'seniority rule' in regard to Income-tax Service, Class I, Grade II along with the improper implementation of the 'quota' recruitment to that service as infringing the guarantee of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. The ...
The Indian Supreme Court in its decision in Jaisinghani’s case in 1967 ruled that “the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based is that discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits”.
The seniority rule and quota rule for recruitment to the Income Tax Service, Class I, Grade II, did not violate Articles 14 or 16 (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
12 thg 5, 2021 · She has been denied a passport after an adverse report by the CID of Jammu and Kashmir Police. “L AW has reached its finest moments when it has freed men from the unlimited discretion of some ruler, some civil or military official, some bureaucrat. Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dated March 11, 1964 dismissing the Writ petition of the appellant Civil Writ No. 189-D of 1962.
14 thg 1, 2022 · “Law has reached its finest moments, stated Douglas, J. in United States v. Wunderlick [4], …..when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler. Where discretion, is absolute, man has always suffered. It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice.
S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union Of India And Ors. (with Connected Writ Petition) (Supreme Court Of India) Civil Appeal No. 1038 Of 1965 & Writ Petn No. 5 Of 1966 | 22-02-1967
The argument was confirmed to the years 1951 to 1956 According to the appellant, there was excessive recruitment of 71 promotees more than the figure permitted by the quota rule. In the judgment under appeal the High Court has examined the matter and found that the excess number of promotees was 31 for the four years 1951 to 1954.
This delay would disentitle him to the exercise of discretion in his favour by this Court under Article 226. It was urged by the petitioner that there has been violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 (1) and that the delay as it has been should be ignored. The learned Attorney-General referred to B. Venkataramana v.
Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered. At times, it has been his property that has been invaded; at times, his privacy; at times, his liberty of movement; at times, his freedom of thought; at times, his life. Absolute discretion is a ruthless master. It is more destructive of freedom than any of man's other inventions.
14 thg 4, 2024 · Justice Douglas once stated “where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered…Absolute discretion…is more destructive of freedom than any of man’s other inventions.” NEED OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION Governments rely on administrative discretion to handle various tasks efficiently. For instance, in providing services like education, healthcare, and social …
Get free access to the complete judgment in S.G Jaisinghani v. Union Of India And Others on CaseMine.
Bài viết được đề xuất: