Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing The Joint Commissioner Of Customs ... vs Smt. T.E. Radha, Sundaraj Gugan, ... on 28 October, 2005

Union Public Service Commission vs Registrar, Central Administrative ... on 27 July, 2006

Para 4(x): As regards averments made in this Para, it is submitted that the power of the Commission to shortlist the candidates to be called for interview have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their judgment in , Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1990 filed by the (Union of India v. T. Sundaram and Ors.), (Annexure R.I.). It is further submitted that the candidates possessing 27 years' experience as legal practitioner were called for interview. The applicant was not called for interview as he possesses 18 years experience as legal practitioner and 6 years as Central Government Advocate. The shortlisting criteria adopted by the Commission was applied uniformly to all the candidates. No discrimination and unequal treatment has been meted out to the applicant.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document

L B Ranganatha vs B Manoj Kumar on 20 March, 2009

AGE 60 YRS, 0cc:A<3RICuLTUR1s'i:, R/0 HALELAKKGLLI VII.;L.AGE,;*""' - TQ. TARIKERE, DIST. CH-:ct{Msa;a{V.U22_"v.% _ T ' 5..._.P'r'E-', 'ITl€ lNER {By Sxi : s.v. P:§;gI}:z::.sH,;:;%j§_%.f,:'V.::~ §BS';g§r'f AND: ' _ _ 1 V' 1 T NA_§§2%§f;23;}iE£§.£?PA:'S}_v'O "HAE@U§$JANTHAPPA Mwog,' '¥2f_.O_F';E3HA}?i~.KER;E VILLAGE, TARZKERE 'rQj.-»,._<::ei;<::;§;'1sm(3ALI3R DiST.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R M Reddy - Full Document

Smt V Nagammal vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 21 October, 2010

4. Bangalore Development under Article 12 of the Constitution i not act arbitrarily but with .a senselof fai:neVss4,v.T1r_:ere , no explanation forthcominlg"w«..V'asetc) erstwhile CITB and the BDA alleged breach of terms of COI_1ditions~:., agreement executed. extended period of 48' the year 2008 to cancel the in mind the inordinate delay, which; situation tantaniounts to unireasonablle in initiating action, the impugned r 'A«.ofiV"'the BDA must stand condemned. The '--obserVat_ionsV"of a Division Bench of this Court in DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY it REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER vs. SMT. 1, in the circumstances is apposite:
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R M Reddy - Full Document
1