Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Kunwar Pal Singh & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 3 January, 2013

Kunwar Pal vs Delhi Development Authority And Others on 25 April, 2026

2026.04.25 17:03:04 MCA DJ No. 22/2023 +0530 Kunwar Pal Vs. DDA & Ors Page No. 11 of 17 not appear to be tainted by mala fide intent or deliberate negligence. No doubt, such omissions would weaken the claim of "sufficient cause". However, Courts are expected to consider the totality of circumstances and apply judicial discretion pragmatically. In the absence of supporting documents, while reflecting a slightly lack of diligence, does not render the explanation implausible per se.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. vs Sh. Rakesh Beniwal And Ors. on 4 August, 2014

Serviceman categories respectively. The written test for the purpose of recruitment was held on 17.11.2002. The result of the test was declared in stages. On 10.01.2003 the result was declared for three categories, namely; general, physically handicapped and ex- servicemen categories. The second set of results was declared on 22.03.2004 in respect of the scheduled caste(SC) and Other Backward Class (OBC)- subject to outcome of a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 625/2002) filed by the Govt. of Delhi against the decision in C.W.P. No. 5061/2001 Kunwar Pal &Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi. That appeal was subsequently dismissed by order dated 13.05.2005. The third set of results was declared on 02.09.2005 in respect of SC & ST candidates from outside the state. The last set of results was declared on 10.12.2007 after directions of this Court (in W.P. (C)No. 6498 of 2007), in the case of the applicants in respect of the sports category.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 29 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Surender Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board, Govt. Of Nctd on 24 September, 2018

The appointment of the applicants therein is the result of the same exam and that it was just a matter of chance that the issuance of appointment letters in favour of the applicant in OA were withheld on account of pendency of LPA-625/2002 filed by Government of Delhi against the decision in CWP No. 5061/2001 (Kunwar Pal & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi). The applicants were disabled for appointment on account of the pendency of the LPA, and not because of any delay on their part.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamlesh Kumar Meena vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation Of ... on 24 August, 2018

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claims of all those persons including the applicants who were appointed belatedly in compliance of the decision in Kunwar Pal and Others 7 OA 4240/2015 (supra), and to grant notional seniority, fixation of pay as per their position in the merit list prepared by DSSSB in the relevant year, with all consequential benefits, except back wages, as admissible to their batchmates, belonging to the unreserved/general category candidates. This exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudhir Kumar vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 8 January, 2019

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OAs 10 OA No.4147/2015 and connected cases are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claims of the applicants who were appointed belatedly in compliance of the decision in Kunwar Pal and Others (supra), and to grant notional seniority, fixation of pay as per their position in the merit list prepared by DSSSB in the relevant year, with all consequential benefits, except back wages, as admissible to their batchmates belonging to the unreserved/general category candidates. This exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yashpal vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 8 January, 2019

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OAs 8 OA 4170/2016 with OA 4199/2016 & OA 4279/2016 are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claims of the applicants who were appointed belatedly in compliance of the decision in Kunwar Pal and Others (supra), and to grant notional seniority, fixation of pay as per their position in the merit list prepared by DSSSB in the relevant year, with all consequential benefits, except back wages, as admissible to their batchmates belonging to the unreserved/general category candidates. This exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavna Dabas vs Govt. Of Nctd on 18 January, 2019

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the claims of the applicants who were appointed belatedly in compliance of the decision in Kunwar Pal and Others (supra), and to grant notional seniority, fixation of pay as per their position in the merit list prepared by DSSSB in the relevant year, with all consequential benefits, except back wages, as admissible to their batchmates belonging to the unreserved/general category candidates. This exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamlesh Kumar Meena vs Govt. Of Nctd on 24 January, 2022

iii) After verification, if the department comes to the conclusion that the appointment of the applicants was treated to be w.e.f. 2002-2003 in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2000 for the post of PGT, post code 128/2008, the case of the applicants will be decided in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled Kunwar Pal and others (supra) upheld in LPA No. 625/20o2 (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parveen Kumar vs Govt. Of Nctd on 27 October, 2021

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an Advertisement No.022/2002 in the year 2002 for selection and appointment to various posts, 5 Item No. 17 O.A. No.2383/2021 including the post of Grade-IV DASS(Post Code No.22/2002) in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The applicants applied for the post and appeared in the written examination held in the year 2002. The DSSSB - respondent No.4 declared the result and issued select list. However, the result of SC category for the same post was not declared nor reasons were disclosed. Thereafter, the respondents declared the result of Ex- Servicemen against 37 vacancies vide Order No. 39 dated 26.06.2003. The applicant contends that as the result of other categories was declared and appointments were made. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the other candidates, whose results were declared by the respondents, have joined. On a query about delay in declaration of their results, the respondent No.4 assured the applicants that no prejudice would be caused to them on account of delay and that their results could not be declared due to pendency of LPA No. 625/2002, which was filed against CWP No.5061/2001 (Kunwar Pal & Ors. 6 Item No. 17 O.A. No.2383/2021 Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi). Finally, the results of the applicants were declared and they were issued offer of appointment in the years 2005 to 2006 to the party to LPA No. 625/2002.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next