Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Sudha Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2018

Smt. Sandhya Mishra vs Union Of India on 25 September, 2019

Likewise, in Writ Petition No.14592/2016 parties being Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.14799/2016 parties being Smt. Sandhya Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.15273/2016 parties being Kamini Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Writ Petition No.13103/2017 parties being Mrs. Suman Ahirwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others this Court has also dealt with the same issue and finally observed that the petitioner since holding the additional charge of the post of Warden, has no WP No. 11324/2014 (S) & linked matters
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 21 - P Shrivastava - Full Document

Sanjay Daheriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2018

Likewise, in Writ Petition No.14592/2016 parties being Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.14799/2016 parties being Smt. Sandhya Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.15273/2016 parties being Kamini Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Writ Petition No.13103/2017 parties being Mrs. Suman Ahirwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others this Court has also dealt with the same issue and finally observed that the petitioner since holding the additional charge of the post 3 WP-12634-2018 of Warden, has no fundamental or legal right to continue to hold the said charge and further placing reliance in a case of Abha Pandey (supra), dismissed the petition saying that there is nothing illegal on the part of the State to frame a policy for not giving additional charge to the candidates already completed three years on the said post.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Smt. Pratibha Shukla vs The Union Of India on 25 June, 2018

Likewise, in Writ Petition No.14592/2016 parties being Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.14799/2016 parties being Smt. Sandhya Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ 5 Writ Petition No.11889/2018 Petition No.15273/2016 parties being Kamini Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Writ Petition No.13103/2017 parties being Mrs. Suman Ahirwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others this Court has also dealt with the same issue and finally observed that the petitioner since holding the additional charge of the post of Warden, has no fundamental or legal right to continue to hold the said charge and further placing reliance in a case of Abha Pandey (supra), dismissed the petition saying that there is nothing illegal on the part of the State to frame a policy for not giving additional charge to the candidates already completed three years on the said post.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Leela Ahirwar vs The Union Of India on 25 June, 2018

Likewise, in Writ Petition No.14592/2016 parties being Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.14799/2016 parties being Smt. Sandhya Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.15273/2016 parties being Kamini Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Writ Petition 5 Writ Petition No.11887/2018 No.13103/2017 parties being Mrs. Suman Ahirwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others this Court has also dealt with the same issue and finally observed that the petitioner since holding the additional charge of the post of Warden, has no fundamental or legal right to continue to hold the said charge and further placing reliance in a case of Abha Pandey (supra), dismissed the petition saying that there is nothing illegal on the part of the State to frame a policy for not giving additional charge to the candidates already completed three years on the said post.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ku. Kavita Adarsh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2025

Likewise, in Writ Petition No.14592/2016 parties being Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.14799/2016 parties being Smt. Sandhya Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.15273/2016 parties being Kamini Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Writ Petition No.13103/2017 parties being Mrs. Suman Ahirwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others this Court has also dealt with the same issue and finally observed that the petitioner since holding the additional charge of the post of Warden, has no fundamental or legal right to continue to hold the said charge and further placing reliance in a case of Abha Pandey (supra), dismissed the petition saying that there is nothing illegal on the part of the State to frame a policy for not giving additional charge to the candidates already completed three years on the said post."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Sita Swami Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2025

Likewise, in Writ Petition No.14592/2016 parties being Smt. Neelam Bajpai Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.14799/2016 parties being Smt. Sandhya Nayak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Writ Petition No.15273/2016 parties being Kamini Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Writ Petition No.13103/2017 parties being Mrs. Suman Ahirwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others this Court has also dealt with the same issue and finally observed that the petitioner since holding the additional charge of the post of Warden, has no fundamental or legal right to continue to hold the said charge and further placing reliance in a case of Abha Pandey (supra), dismissed the petition saying that there is nothing illegal on the part of the State to frame a policy for not giving additional charge to the candidates already completed three years on the said post."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudha Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Misc. Criminal Case No. 34865/2018 Sudha Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. By way of counter arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first case 605 gms Ganja is said to have been seized in possession of the petitioner and in the second case 1.100 gms is said to have been seized from her possession. In both of those cases, she was released on bail from the trial Court. He has filed order sheets to demonstrate that no conviction in those cases has been recorded so far and both the cases are pending.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next