Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When the yardstick of minimum chest size is not provided for other government jobs involving comparable or more physical activity, one does not see any rhyme or reason behind the criterion in question, particularly for female candidates.”
Supreme Court said that B.Ed. is not a qualification for teachers at Primary level of schooling. The pedagogical skills and training required from a teacher at Primary level is not expected from a B.Ed. trained teacher.
“When the position of law is almost identical everywhere in the other States and when the benefit of Annual Increment is given to such employees, then denial of such benefits to the petitioners would amount to violation of their right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Due to non-payment of salary and non-consideration of petitioner’s representation for four years, all of his family members had suffered mentally and financially.
Supreme Court will be examining the validity of exorbitant enrolment fees charged by State Bar Councils
Allahabad High Court said that the proceedings against the petitioner based only on inspection report is arbitrary.
Allahabad High Court: In a public interest litigation petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by a father of a student (‘petitioner’) challenging the validity and constitutionality of a Circular
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition filed for quashing of the notification dated 21.6.2016, whereby the State Government has amended the
Kerala High Court: In a disturbing case where a German National, who came to India on a 1-year visa for NGO volunteer
[“In the present recruitment, females have succeeded in huge numbers, and it appears that unsuccessful male candidates are not able to cope up with the fact that females have overnumbered them in merit. It is an example of ‘male chauvinism’ which is unacceptable in twenty first century.”]
The factum of the recommendation and its acceptance was kept a secret from public and students at large, until the fag end and on the very date the results were declared, it was disclosed to the students. This clearly shows the arbitrariness and lapse on the part of the Board to keep the students in the dark about the weightage formula adopted for preparation of final result.
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of
“When the undeniable facts, including the traffic blockage due to agitation, are taken into consideration, the State alone remains responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic.”
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S.K. Mishra and Savitri Ratho, JJ., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The instant
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.J. Kathawalla and R.I. Chagla, JJ., quashed and set aside the unreasonable restriction placed by the
Calcutta High Court: Sahidullah Munshi, J. allowed a writ petition assigned before the Court on the request for reference by the Single
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Bench of S.K Seth, C.J. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. dismissed a writ petition challenging the conditions
Kerala High Court: The Bench of V. Chitambaresh and T.V. Anilkumar, JJ. dismissed writ appeals filed by administrative officers of this Court,
Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ravi Malimath, J. allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the