DR. RASH LAL YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DR. RASH LAL YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

The omission of the proviso requiring an opportunity to show cause in Section 10(7) was deliberate, signifying legislative intent to exclude the application of natural justice; thus, removal can occur at the pleasure of the State Government and does not violate Article 14. The power is not unbridled as it is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. Rash Lal Yadav; Respondent: State of Bihar; Advocates for Respondents 4 & 6: Gopal Subramaniam and L.R. Singh; Advocate for Respondent 5: A. Sharan; Advocate for Respondents 7 & 8: Ranjit Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 June 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Doctrine of Pleasure, Removal From Tenure Post, Statutory Powers, Article 14 Constitution of India
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Natural Justice Doctrine of Pleasure Removal From Tenure Post Statutory Powers Article 14 Constitution of India

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Rash Lal Yadav

Appellant

State of Bihar

Respondent

Gopal Subramaniam and L.R. Singh

Advocates for Respondents 4 & 6

A. Sharan

Advocate for Respondent 5

Ranjit Kumar

Advocate for Respondents 7 & 8

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 10(7) of Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 is ultra vires Article 14 for conferring unguided and absolute power of removal on State Government
  2. 2 Whether opportunity to show cause must be read into Section 10(7) despite its exclusion
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of pleasure applies to statutory offices under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of the proviso requiring an opportunity to show cause in Section 10(7) was deliberate, signifying legislative intent to exclude the application of natural justice; thus, removal can occur at the pleasure of the State Government and does not violate Article 14. The power is not unbridled as it is structured by the requirement that conduct be detrimental to the Board's interests.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs