TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under the Freedom Fighter scheme launched by the Union of 2 RPT.(ST).11490/10-WP.7955/06 India. The widow of the Freedom Fighter who is the Respondent's grandmother nominated the Respondent for Government service. 3. The Respondent made an application for service. An inquiry report was called for. The inquiry report shows that the Respondent was dependent on the said widow, his grandmother. His grandmother had expired by then. The Respondent's application was rejected for nomination for Government service. 4. The Respondent filed the above Writ Petition challenging the order of the Petitioner herein dated 7th June 2005. 5. When the Petition came up for hearing the then Associate Advocate General representing the Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in an earlier precedent by the Apex Court. The Counsel did not contest the point. It was contended that it was permissible in law to make provision in the Standing Orders for automatic termination. Rejecting that contention it was held that it cannot be treated as a finding in view of the wrong concession by Counsel at that question of law. Such a concession cannot constitute a just ground for a binding precedent. 9. Following this case it was held in the case of Central Council For Research in Ayurveda Siddha and Anr. Vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari (2001) 5 SCC 60 that since a wrong concession or admission on a question of law made before the Court by Counsel is not binding on his client, the opposite party cannot seek benefit on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the parties. 11.In the case of Union of India Anr. Vs. S.C. Parashar (2006) 3 SCC 167 the imposition of major and minor penalty upon a delinquent in a departmental inquiry came up for consideration. An amalgam of major 5 RPT.(ST).11490/10-WP.7955/06 and minor penalties were imposed on the defaulter. The Government Counsel conceded before the High Court that the penalty was imposed under specific rules which was Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Upon seeing that the intention of the punishing authority was not to impose minor penalty, it was held that the concession on question of law by Counsel does not bind the party. 12.It is contended by the Petitioner herein that the concession has been wrongly ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
