Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 193 (3.29 seconds)
Documents citing P.Ganeshwar Rao & Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 September, 1988

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar on 20 May, 2022

It is true, as contended by Mr H.S. Gururaja Rao, that this Court has followed the ratio therein in many a decision and those cited by him are P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P., P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, A.A. Calton v. Director of Education, N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, Ramesh Kumar Choudha v. State of M.P. In none of these decisions, a situation which has arisen in the present case had come up for consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 121 - P S Narasimha - Full Document

Gopalan A vs Superintendent on 20 August, 2013

It is true, as contended by Mr H.S. Gururaja Rao, that this Court has followed the ratio therein in many a decision and those cited by him are P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P., P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, A.A. Calton v. Director of Education, N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, Ramesh Kumar Choudha v. State of M.P. In none of these decisions, a situation which has arisen in the present case had come up for consideration. Even Rule 3 of the General Rules is not of any help to the respondent for the reason that Rule 3 contemplates making of an appointment in accordance with the existing Rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 August, 2019

57. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for appointment. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. (Deepak Agarwal[10]; Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty[13]). In Y.V. Rangaiah[2], the Government had merely amended and had applied the amended Rules without taking a conscious decision not to fill up the existing vacancies pending amendment of the Rules. (Dr. K. Ramulu[12]). The ratio in Y.V. Rangaiah[2] was followed in P. Ganeshwar Rao and Ors. Vs. State of A.P. and Ors.[19]; P. Mahendran[4]; A.A. Calton[3]; N.T. Devin Katti[5]; Ramesh Kumar Choudha and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.[21]. In none of these decisions, had a situation arisen where the Government had taken a conscious decision not to make any appointment till the amendment of the Rules (Dr. K. Ramulu[12]).
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - A K Verma - Full Document

Association Of Engineers vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2009

In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao2, P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P.3 and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education4 it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicability was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacancies, which admittedly existed. This being the correct legal position, the High Court ought to have directed the respondent to declare the results for 171 posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79 which it had done."
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

D.Raghu vs R.Basaveswarudu on 5 February, 2020

1983 SCC (L&S) 382] would apply to the facts of this case. The Government therein merely amended the Rules, applied the amended Rules without taking any conscious decision not to fill up the existing vacancies pending amendment of the Rules on the date the new Rules came into force. It is true, as contended by Mr H.S. Gururaja Rao, that this Court has followed the ratio therein in many a decision and those cited by him are P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. [1988 Supp SCC 740 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - K Joseph - Full Document

N Ravi vs The Commissioner on 12 July, 2021

In B.L. Gupta [B.L. Gupta v. MCD, (1998) 9 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 532] the Court reiterated the principle stated in Y.V. Rangaiah [Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382 : AIR 1983 SC 852] , P. Ganeshwar Rao [P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P., 1988 Supp SCC 740 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 123 : (1988) 8 ATC 957] and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education [(1983) 3 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 356] wherein it had been held that the vacancies which had occurred prior to 41 the amendment of rules were governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next