Dr. Mir Zaffar Aman vs Sheikh Babar Ali And Anr on 8 June, 2016
Incidentally,
the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Dwarka Prashad v Union of India (supra)
is based on the above judgment. It, therefore, is not applicable herein.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 106 (0.71 seconds)Santosh Dutta Patwari vs Govt. Of Nctd on 1 December, 2025
In support of this contention, reliance has been
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dwarka
Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (1) ATJ (SC)
591, wherein it has been held that "Right to be considered for
promotion on fair and equal basis without discrimination may be
claimed as a legal and fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16."
Therefore, denying promotion to the applicant from the date his
juniors were promoted is arbitrary, discriminatory, and
unconstitutional.
Santosh Dutt Patwari vs Govt. Of Nctd on 1 December, 2025
In support of this contention, reliance has been
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dwarka
Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India, reported in 2004 (1) ATJ (SC)
591, wherein it has been held that "Right to be considered for
promotion on fair and equal basis without discrimination may be
claimed as a legal and fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16."
Therefore, denying promotion to the applicant from the date his
juniors were promoted is arbitrary, discriminatory, and
unconstitutional.
The Chairman, Neyveli Lignite ... vs D. Visweswaran And The Collector on 19 August, 2006
The Hon'ble Minister said that this issue was discussed with the Corporation officials by him earlier when it was stated that the immediate problem was with reference to the immediate need involving the three villages instead of taking all the villages together. There was also need to deal with the situation in such a manner as not to escalate to a larger area in view of the agitation organised by the Agriculturists Association to avoid a law and order problem. It was, therefore, decided that the cases relating to the displaced persons belonging to the three Page 2453 villages referred to above, might be settled first and those belonging to the 1st and 2nd priorities were therefore considered for employment. The commitments made by Neyveli Lignite Corporation, even not their record, should have been fulfilled at that time itself.
Ashok Kumar vs M/O Finance on 7 January, 2020
i. Dwarka Prasad and others vs. Union of India
and others, 2004 (1) ATJ (SC) 591, decided by
Hon‟ble Supreme Court;
Sujith.T.G vs State Of Kerla on 14 July, 2020
In Dwarka Prasad v. Union of India reported in [(2003) 6 SCC
535] it was held :-
Om Parkash & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 July, 2020
14) In Dwarka Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. , the
argument examined was that the promotion opportunities have to be
provided in ratio with the strength of the feeder cadre. It was held
as under:
As Senior Lecturer vs Union Of India And Others on 17 December, 2021
14) In Dwarka Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(2003) 6 SCC 535, the argument examined was that
the promotion opportunities have to be provided in
ratio with the strength of the feeder cadre. It was held
as under:
All India Union Bank Officer Staff ... vs Government Of India on 1 April, 2020
(ii) Dwarka Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
[AIR 2003 SC 2971]
Dinesh Thakur Alias Dineshwar Thakur vs Amitabh Thakur And Ors on 27 September, 2023
In Siban Mahto case (supra), Hon'ble Patna
High Court has relied upon the case of Dwarka Prasad v.
Union of India as reported in 1954 BLJR 236.