REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SUNITA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GERARD V. WORTH OF PARIS LTD. (K). [REFERRED TO]
LANCASTER MOTOR CO. (LONDON) LTD. V. BREMITH LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SOVACHAND MULCHAND V. COLLECTOR,CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
NEW KRISHNA BHAVAN V. COMMERCIAL-TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. ASHOK [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AMRITSAR VS. HAZARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GURNAM KAUR [REFERRED TO]
ANJALI HAZARI VS. RAVINDRA KISHEN HAZARI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BALDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ARNIT DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
A ONE GRANITES VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. MANOHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. MANOHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC VS. MAHADEVA SHETTY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DEVANS MODERN BREWARIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. JEET S BISHT [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JAYDEO S O MAHADEO PARATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
D. D. BILIMORIA, ELECTRIC CONTRACTOR VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was heard by the Division Bench on 7/12/2022. After considering the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, the following order was passed:-

(2.) The issue referred to our Full Bench is 'whether, clause E can be said to have been declared unconstitutional for all purposes and in it's entirety'.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the Petitioners contended that clause E of the Government Resolution dtd. 28/3/2001 was rightly held as being unconstitutional, by the Division Bench in Kashabai (supra). Once such a conclusion is drawn, the said clause loses it's efficacy and cannot be pressed into service. Since this declaration was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench in Bhagyashree (supra), the view taken in the latter judgment will have to be treated as being per incuriam. He further submits that the State of Maharashtra introduced "The Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005" (for short, "the Rules of 2005"). In view of the proviso below Rule 3 of the Rules of 2005, Petitioner no.2 cannot be disqualified for appointment on compassionate basis as the said Rules were introduced on 28/3/2005 and therefore, that date becomes the cut off date. After this cut off date, the number of children of the Petitioner no.1, have not grown.

Click here to view full judgment.

SUNITA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address