Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Amit Gujrati vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2019

Pinki vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:02 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhishek vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:48:56 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meenakshi vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:13 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govind vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:56 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunita Pandit vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:20 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohanlal Bohra vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:05 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ganpat Tank vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:59 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Laxmi Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:37 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sharda Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:50:34 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jay Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 August, 2019

On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:50:08 AM) (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next