post in adherence to the Rules treating themselves to be overage. Hence, acceptance of the writ petitions would be to the benefit of those ... appellant is that the appellant was eligible and was not overage because the notification dated 13.11.1996 applied to his case. It was contended that since
Petitioner knowing it well that even after relaxation he would be overage by more than two months, made an application.
It is submitted that ... applied for the post knowing it well that he is ineligible being overage. If relief is granted then it would be in discrimination
petitioner applied for the post but held to be ineligible being overage.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner is an Outstanding Sports Person and, if benefit ... petitioner is not entitled for relaxation in age. The petitioner is overage and in absence of any relaxation in age for the Outstanding Sports Persons
Krishna Soni And Anr vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Anr on 19 December, 2013
Author
Sudesh Kumar Verma And Anr vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 December, 2013
Kamla Yadav And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Anr on 19 December, 2013
Author
Bharat Kumar Mehta And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 December, 2013
Surendra Kumar Bagaria And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 December, 2013
Rajendra Singh Meel And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 December, 2013
Santosh Kumar Sain And Ors vs State (Panchayati Raj Dep )Ors on 19 December, 2013
