Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that non-inclusion of Professors/Head of the Department in selection committee amounts to violating the mandate of Madhya Pradesh Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Avam Sanchar Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1990.
Section 7 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 provides that the Selection Committee would comprise of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
PROGRAMME CONCEPT NOTE The ‘Courts and The Constitution’ Conference is an annual programme, meant to encourage critical engagement and the production of
“No mandate on the State to carry out public advertisement, especially when a Selection Committee was appointed which could device a method by which the search of suitable people could be made, and recommendations could be given to the Government.”
“The role of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. In the absence of any rule or regulation, there was no obligation on the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (‘ACC') for providing reasons while passing the order regarding approval or non-approval of a candidate.”
The petitioner has contended that S. 22 of RERA Act violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution and envisages Executive predominance.
“The Writ Courts must not substitute their opinions to the opinions arrived at by the experts unless the Court is satisfied that the decision taken by the experts is perverse or illegal. The function of the Court is only to see that the decision has been arrived at in good faith and the experts have acted reasonably.”
The challenge is filed by Prof. Dr. Pratap Manohar Raval, an aspirant to the post of Director of School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of
“The entire controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the tug of war in the year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the then Vice Chancellor, making the appellant a victim in the line of fire. Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of all this.”
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and R.C. Khulbe, J. refused to entertain a writ petition which sought,