Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 265 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Bihar State Electricity Board vs Suresh Prasad & Ors on 25 February, 2004

U.P. Public Service Commission Through ... vs State Of U.P. And Atul Krishna Singh S/O ... on 8 March, 2007

35. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad and Ors. (supra) since the post in question was of reserved category and a concession was made in the counter affidavit on behalf of the Government, it was directed to be filled in but there is no general law laid down therein that a select list candidate has a right to seek appointment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Tripathi S/O Sri Daya Ram ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary, ... on 18 May, 2007

26. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad and Ors. (supra), since the post in question was of reserved category and a concession was made in the counter affidavit on behalf of the Government, it was directed to be filled in but there is no general law laid down therein that a select list candidate has a right to seek appointment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lal Bahadur Son Of Raj Bali vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ... on 1 March, 2007

15. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad and Ors. (supra), since the post in question was of reserved category and a concession was made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it was directed to be filled in but there is no general law laid down therein that a select list candidate has a right to seek appointment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S Agarwal - Full Document

T.T. Public School vs The Presiding Officer And Anr. on 20 December, 2005

Mrs. Abha Rathore then argues that since nothing could be established to the effect that the contractor was registered, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 3527 read with the case of Hussainbhai v. The Alath Factory Tezhilali Union and Ors. , as well the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and Ors. , the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is that the story of a contractor was a camouflage and that it was a sham transaction and therefore, the entire period that the concerned workman had rendered under the contractor if calculated, would make the period of work much more than 232 days and therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply. She submits that the Labour Court had therefor rightly considered the aforementioned period under the Contractor because there was no genuine contract during the relevant period.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - T Sen - Full Document

Neelesh Ku. Soni vs Principal Secretary Department Of ... on 24 October, 2016

17. I will be failing in my duty if I won't consider the judgment cited by the respondents in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board vs. Suresh Prasad and others (2004) SCC 681. As per this judgment of Supreme Court, it is clear that in absence of any statutory provision, which requires the employer to prepare a wait list in addition to the merit list, the employer cannot appoint his candidate on the basis of waiting list. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

The Superintending Engineer vs T.Babu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 03:59:50 pm ) 35/39 W.P. Nos.12192 of 2020 & 14822 of 2021 a. Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh, 1999 (1) LLJ 1086 b. Kanpur Electricity Board Company Ltd Vs. Shamim Mirza, 2009 (1) LLN 121 c. Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing corporation, 2010 (5) SCC 192 d. Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Haryana, 2010 (5) SCC 497 e. Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011(6) SCC 584 f. R.Lakshmi Vs. TNEB & Ors., 2012 (3) LLN (DB) (Mad.)
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jawahar Lal vs Central Excise & Customs on 12 January, 2022

"Para 3. It is also worth to mention here that there are certain decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. (i) Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh and other etc.etc. - AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1160 (Para 15 to 20 refers - copy enclosed as Ann. 'A'), (ii) M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd,; Vs. Union of India & other - 2011 STPL(LE)4515 SC(copy enclosed as Ann. 'B')etc. wherein it has been held that even a daily wager/casual labour who are working through contractors are entitled for this benefit subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Various Benches of the CAT and some High Courts have been taking the view that the scheme is an ongoing affairs. Xxx Para 6 xxxxx There are some of the casual labours who were earlier engaged directly by this office and now they are engaged through the contractors. Xxxx Para 8 xxxx Therefore, in view of the above, it is requested that permission may be granted for conferring temporary status to the casual workers who have completed more than 10 years of continuous satisfactory service as a casual workers as per norms contained in DOPT's OM No. 51016/2/90-Estt. (C) dated 10.09.1993".
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next