Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.78 seconds)
Documents citing Subhash S/O Fakirchand Agarwal And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 28 June, 1993

Jyotsna Rajguru vs M. P. Trade And Investment Facilitation ... on 7 June, 2021

19. Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment. No government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. A circular letter (administrative instructions) is not a statutory instrument and cannot replace the statutory rules framed under Article 309 and any policy decision of State adopted in contravention of statutory Rules would be illegal and void. Any departmental letter or executive instructions cannot prevail over or override, statutory rules and constitutional provisions. [Please see: Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 1995 Supp.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N Dubey - Full Document

Anil Kumar Gupta And Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 24 November, 1999

In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332) where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that the rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification. It is true, in N. Suresh Nathan's case, the experience of a candidate while holding diploma was not counted. There the relevant rules stated:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 85 - M J Rao - Full Document

Jai Parkash Sharma And Anr vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 October, 2015

In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332) where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that the rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Bhojani Anand Prabhudas vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2026

In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332) where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that the rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Insha Sami Baba vs State Of Jk & Ors on 9 May, 2022

In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 (3) SCC 332, where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that the Rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muzamil Ahmad Dar vs High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors on 26 August, 2022

In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 (3) SCC 332, where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that the Rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Magrey - Full Document

Ankit Solanki vs The Flag Officer Commanding In Chief ... on 23 January, 2023

11. Though the learned counsel on the basis of the above decisions contended that when the Rules prescribed only acquisition of minimum experience and does not prescribe that it should be acquired after acquisition of the degree/diploma, any prescription ex-post-facto that acquisition should be subsequent to the acquisition of degree cannot be accepted. However, the Supreme Court in an identical situation, though in a decision rendered prior to the decision in Subhas's case (supra) had directly dealt with this issue.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Rahul Dev vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 23 January, 2013

In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332) where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules,namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that the rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next