Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vs Smt. Vibha Shukla & Ors on 18 May, 2007

Dr Meher Fatima Hussain vs Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors. on 11 April, 2023

54. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the case of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (SMT.) & Ors., 2007 (15) SCC 161]. In the considered opinion of this Court, issuance of advertisement shall attract talent and regularising / absorbing the appellants/petitioners without considering all eligible persons through advertisement shall violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Sumit Solanki vs Energy Efficiency Services Limited on 3 July, 2023

21. Further, the fact that all the petitioners except one have applied / participated in the examination pursuant to the recruitment notice dated October 15, 2019 wherein age relaxation was also given to the petitioners, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria and also the fact only nine have qualified the written examination to be called for the interview, the petitioners cannot now seek regularization by way of this writ petition by seeking a direction for declaration of the result of the interviews. This I say so, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (Smt)& Ors., (2007) 15 SCC 161 wherein the Supreme Court held that regularization is not a mode of appointment. Also they having participated in the LPA 28/2022 Page 36 of 57 Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:04.07.2023 15:49:22 Neutral Citation Number:2023:DHC:4455-DB selection process are estopped from challenging the recruitment notice, (which prayer has been rejected by this court on October 12, 2020 and upheld by the Division Bench).
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Prof Sabiha Hussain vs Jamiamilia Islamia And Ors on 11 April, 2023

54. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the case of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (SMT.) & Ors., 2007 (15) SCC 161]. In the considered opinion of this Court, issuance of advertisement shall attract talent and regularising / absorbing the appellants/petitioners without considering all eligible persons through advertisement shall violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Dr Suraiya Tabassum vs Jamia Millia Islamia University ... on 11 April, 2023

54. The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the case of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (SMT.) & Ors., 2007 (15) SCC 161]. In the considered opinion of this Court, issuance of advertisement shall attract talent and regularising / absorbing the appellants/petitioners without considering all eligible persons through advertisement shall violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Tyagi vs Union Of India Through on 10 May, 2011

7. It may be noticed here that the services of the applicant were terminated vide letter dated 22.12.2003 whereas the OA was filed on 25.11.2009. In any case we are of the view that the applicant has not made out any case for reviewing our judgment. What the applicant wants by way of this review application is to rehear the case on merit on the same grounds, which stand fully covered by the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) and also in the light of the findings recorded by the Apex Court in paragraphs 20 & 21 of the decision in Nagar Mahapalika (supra), relevant portion of which has been reproduced above.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Pawan Kumar Divedi & Ors on 2 September, 2014

(R.M. Lodha) …….………..……………………J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar) …….………..……………………J. (J. Chelameswar) …….………..……………………J. (A.K. Sikri) NEW DELHI; …….………..……………………J. SEPTEMBER 2, 2014. (Rohinton Fali Nariman) ----------------------- [1] Vinod Sharma and others v. Director of Education (Basic) U.P. and others; [(1998) 3 SCC 404] ð reported in (2006) 7 SCC 745 [2] TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka; [(2002) 8 SCC 481] [3] J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of AP; [(1993) l SCC 645] [4] State of HP v. HP State Recognised High Schools Managing Committee; [(1995) 4 SCC 507] [5] State of UP v. Babu Ram Upadhya; [AIR 1961 SC 751] [6] Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (Smt.) and Others; [ (2007) 15 SCC 161] [7] Barras v. Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Company; [1933 All ER 52] [8] Gallagher v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; [(2008) 4 All ER 640] [9] Diamond Sugar Mills Ltd. v. the State of Uttar Pradesh; [AIR 1961 SC 652]
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 219 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next