LexLords NRI Legal Services Toronto By NRI Legal Services LexLords

2014 providing for reservation to in-service candidates, when the writ petition filed by the in-service candidates was limited to equate them with the in-service candidates who had the experience of working in remote or difficult areas. 302 ground on which the learned Judges in the High Court rested their decision. It is not in dispute that PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Regulations which was framed in 1957 provided for Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). All the shops under construction and also those which are already constructed are under the Jurisdiction of the Office of the Parishad.

and continued to serve the Corporation till they all retired between 1989 and 1991. The observations of Kania C. PEPSU Roadways lost its utility due to creation of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 1956) that His Highness the Rajpramukh had ordered the transfer of PEPSU Roadways to the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (with effect from 15. Copy of notification dated 07. The same remarks apply to the other decision relied on.

The respondents never challenged this declaration, got promotions etc. The different sec- tions of the Act have been analysed and the important dif- ferences have been clearly indicated by the learned Chief Justice of West Bengal and need not be repeated in detail. The crucial question to be examined in this case is: whether the norm specified in Regulation 9 regarding incentive marks can be termed as excessive and unreasonable?

There was no provision for grant of pension. 1956 the Corporation admitted that PEPSU Roadways stood taken over by the Corporation from 16. Having considered the rival submissions, the first question that needs to be answered is: whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the Government NRI Legal Services Order dated 28. So long as the possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly unconsti- tutional and void.

It prescribes the basis for determining the eligibilities of the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining the inter se merit, on the basis of one merit list of candidates appearing in the same NEET including by giving commensurate weightage of marks to the in-service candidates. With respect, those decisions have, I think, no application here. 1956 informing the General Manager, PEPSU Roadways, Patiala (with reference to PEPSU Roadways communication dated 14.

In other words, clause (2) of article 19 having allowed the imposition NRI Legal Services of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression only in cases where danger to the State is involved, an enactment, which is capable of being applied to cases where no such danger could arise, cannot be held to be constitutional and valid to any extent. " This passage, which was relied on by the learned Chief Justice, lends no support to the view that the mere possibility of an Act being used in a manner not contem- plated by the legislature, though 303 such use may not be subject to judicial review on that ground, or, in other words, the mere possibility of its abuse in practice would justify its condemnation as uncon- stitutional.

The State Government through the Chief Secretary issued a letter dated 16. That the Act has prescribed a procedure of trial which is materially different from that laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be disputed. Under these Regulations, for the first time pension was introduced in the Corporation. 1956 forenoon) on various terms and conditions in respect to evaluation of the assets of the PEPSU Roadways as well as sharing the burden for payment of the employees of the Corporation.

Regulation 9, as applicable, does not permit preparation of two merit lists, as predicated in the case of Tirthani (supra). But the only relevant constitutional limitation on freedom of speech was that the State could make a law directed against the undermining of the security of the State or the over- throw of it, and as the impugned enactment covered a wider ground by authorising curtailment of that freedom for the purpose of securing the public safety or the maintenance of public order, this Court held it to be wholly unconstitu- tional and void, observing :- "Where a law purports to authorise the imposition of restrictions on a fundamental right in language wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting such right, it is not possible to uphold it even so far as it may be applied within the constitutional limits, as it is not severable.

1956 available on record shows that Corporation was created by this notification under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 enforced with effect from 10. The letter indicates that the Corporation was requested to draw up the agreement required by NRI Legal Services clause (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and forward the same to the Government for approval and signatures. Much after the retirement of the respondents, only with effect from 15.

1956 (before noon), so the NRI Legal Services of all the temporary employees stood transferred to the Corporation with effect from 16. On account of the States Reorganization Act the merger of State of PEPSU with the State of Punjab became effective from 01. Regulation 9 is a complete Code. The remaining shops are also under the jurisdiction of the Office of Parishad. 1992 the Corporation framed PRTC Employees NRI Legal Services Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter described as Regulations of 1992).

1956 on the prevailing terms and conditions till the approval of new terms and conditions by the Corporation. The important distinction is that in Romesh Thapar's case, the impugned enactment, having been passed before the commencement of the Constitution, did contemplate the use to which it was actually put, but such use was outside the permissible constitutional restrictions on the freedom of speech, that is to say, the Act was not condemned on the ground of the possibility of its being abused but on the ground that even the contemplated and authorised use was outside the limits of constitutionally permissible restric- tions.

In Romesh Thapar's case the constitu- tionality of a provincial enactment purporting to authorise the Provincial Government to regulate the circulation of a news-sheet in the Province of Madras for the purpose of "securing the public safety or the maintenance of public order" was challenged as being inconsistent with the peti- tioner's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expres- sion conferred by article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. quoted above indicate the correct approach.