Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court emphasised that the respondents did not object to the petitioner’s continuation of service for twenty-three years. Therefore, depriving the petitioner of pensionary benefits on the ground that a formal order of de-reservation was not passed, even though the ingredients were satisfied, would be unjust.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court reiterated the findings of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4, that the benefits drawn by a candidate not belonging to a scheduled tribe, must be considered to having been drawn on the basis of a false caste certificate; such benefits are required to be withdrawn.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court referred to Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148 wherein it was held that, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances, however it cannot be drawn from insinuation and vague suggestions.

promotion of judicial officers
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Gujarat Government had issued the impugned Notification dated 18.04.2023 during the pendency of the present writ petition and after receiving the notice issued by the Court. The Supreme Court observed that the State Government could have waited till the next date of hearing which was on 28.04.2023.

quashing appointment of Drug Inspectors
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that having participated in the selection process without any demur or protest, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the same as being tainted with mala fides, merely because they were unsuccessful.