Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Santosh Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 May, 1996

Smt. Santosh vs The State on 5 October, 2009

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that deceased husband of the petitioner namely Shri Ranbir Singh was owner of 1/3rd share in agricultural land along with his two brothers namely Shri Subhash Singh and Krishan Kumar, who are also owners of 1/3rd share each in the said agricultural land. The husband of the petitioner died on 18.04.2001 and left behind one minor son Sunni and two daughters besides the petitioner. The minor son and daughters of the petitioner are student and petitioner has no source of income and she is unable Smt. Santosh Vs. State & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Sangeetha vs The Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law ... on 28 August, 2019

28. Yet again reliance has been placed on Santosh Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1996) 9 SCC 320 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1246] . The appellant therein was having a diploma which was not approved by the State of Haryana and despite the same, teachers were appointed to meet the State's educational needs. The validity of the said degree was not in question. Not only appointments were made but also appointment to the appellant was offered in 1980. His services were confirmed in 1984 and sought to be terminated in the year 1990. This Court noticed that a relaxation was granted by the State itself which was available to her and others similarly situated. She, having obtained regularisation in her service, it was wrong and arbitrary on the part of educational department and the school to deprive her of the job. The same is not the case here.”
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Ex Sepoy Chander Singh on 19 November, 1997

[vide Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. P.N.B. Employees Federation ; Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. ; Manorma Verma v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 Suppl(3) SCC 671; Santosh Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors. ; Ramesh Chandra and Ors. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. Daya Ram Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 13 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Pramod Kumar vs U.P.Sec.Education Services Com. & Ors on 7 March, 2008

26. Yet again reliance has been placed on Santosh Yadav (Smt.) Vs. State of Haryana and Others [(1996) 9 SCC 320]. Appellant therein was having 16 a diploma which was not approved by the State of Haryana and despite the same, teachers were appointed to meet the State's educational needs. The validity of the said degree was not in question. Not only appointments were made but also appointment to the appellant was offered in 1980. His services were confirmed in 1984 and sought to be terminated in the year 1990. This Court noticed that a relaxation was granted by the State itself which was available to her and others similarly situated. She, having obtained regularisation in her service, it was wrong and arbitrary on the part of educational department and the school to deprive her of the job. The same is not the case here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 148 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State vs . Rajeev Arora S/O Lt. Ramesh Chand, R/O ... on 16 December, 2009

Vs. State of Bihar, 1998 (2) Apex Court Journal 631 (SC); Bibhishan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (1) Criminal Court Cases 348 (S.C.); Rameshwar Dass Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2008 (1) Criminal Court Cases 349 (S.C.); Ram Rai Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (2) Criminal Court Cases 238 (Rajasthan); Chhajoo Vs. State, 2002 (2) Criminal Court Cases 240 (Allahabad); Anmol Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (1) RCR (Criminal) 177; Santosh vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (1) RCR (Criminal) 179; Dev Raj Vs. State of Haryana, 2006 (2) Criminal Court Cases 90 (P&H); State of U.P. Vs. Brij Bihari & Anr., 2006 (2) Criminal Court Cases 95 (Allahabad) (DB); Anath Bandhu Kundu vs. The State of West Bengal and others, 1996 Cr.L.J. 3449; Biren Mandal v. State, 1996 Cr.L.J. 3455; Vinal Suresh Kamble vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. & Anr., 2003 (2) Apex Court Judgements 28 (S.C.); State of Karnatka vs. M.V. Mahesh, 2003 (2) Apex Court Judgements 33 (SC); Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 317;
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Biplab Samantray vs A.G on 19 February, 2025

Insofar as mismatch between the Original and Provisional Degree certificate is concerned, it has been clarified by him that the same are inadvertent typographical error and the veracity/authenticity of the certificate could have been ascertained from the University itself and not from the Govt. of Sikkim since the Govt. of Sikkim do not control the educational affairs of the said University. It is stated that the applicant has enough evidence to prove the genuinity of the Original Degree Certificate. It is further submitted that since the respondents have admitted that passing of DEA is a precondition for confirmation as mentioned in the offer of appointment and the applicant having passed the DEA was promoted to Sr. Accountant, because no such confirmation was issued it cannot be said that the applicant was not a confirmed employee especially when in terms of the rules unless an employee is confirmed in the 12 O.A.No. 260/00497 of 2018 feeder post he cannot be promoted to higher post. To fortify his stand, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Smt. Santosh Yadav Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, JT 1996 (5) 641. In the aforesaid premises, Ld. Counsel reiterated grant of relief prayed for in this O.A.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next