Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Jagdish Chand vs State Of Haryana on 7 January, 2019

Raj Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 September, 2024

In CWP Page 12 of 13 12 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions No.23810 of 2017 'Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others' pronounced today by separate judgement, we have already held that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, the petitioners are not entitled for hearing even on merits, on account of concealing of facts. In such circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the present writ petitions with the costs of Rs.25,000/- in each case, to be deposited with the Institute for Blind, Sector- 26, Chandigarh, within two months. In case, the amount is not deposited within two months, the Collector Gurugram shall initiate proceedings for recovery of the costs against the petitioners under the Land Revenue Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Lata & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 31 January, 2020

5. The facts that the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II from the post of Senior Assistant was considered, the requirement was more than three years of experience and forwarded on 25.01.2016 (Annexure P-3) as per the then prevalent rules i.e. 2007 Rules, has not been disputed. The factual position of there being vacant posts of Superintendent Grade-II available then, has also not been disputed. The only reason why the claim of the petitioners for promotion on consideration having been recommended has been rejected is the coming into force of the 2016 Rules, on 15.10.2016 (Annexure R-1), which have been made applicable to the Department and the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification as per these 2016 Rules. This action of the respondents in considering the claim of the petitioners, as per the amended rules, is not sustainable in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Chander's case (supra), wherein it has been held that the existing vacancies on the date of amendment coming into force have to be filled from the persons eligible according to the unamended rules without 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 09-02-2020 18:38:07 ::: (4) CWP-12738-2017 reference to the eligibility qualification now provided by the amended rules.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

Jagdish Chand vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 12 November, 2024

CRR-1051-2008 and CRR-1537-2017 This order shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing No. CRR- 1051-2008 titled as 'Jagdish Chand versus State of Haryana and others' and CRR No.1537-2017 titled as 'Jagdish Chand versus State of Haryana' as they arise out of the same FIR No.93 dated 26.04.2003 under Sections 364 read with Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Missing.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document
1