Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar And Anr on 18 December, 1998

State vs R.N.Sharma on 8 February, 2010

To same effect reliance was placed upon State of Punjab Vs Jit Singh & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 549] 24 On perusal of records, this court is of considered opinion and finds itself in agreement with submissions made by learned counsel for accused to the effect that most of the prosecution witnesses have made substantial improvements while deposing in court as compared to their statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. PW.5,PW.6 and PW.10 have apparently 22 State Vs R.N.Sharma made substantial improvements and infact have substantially changed facts as had been mentioned by them in their statements recorded by the police. Not only this, there are some glaring contradictions in testimony of these witnesses interse. 25 It cannot be lost sight of that the accused had been placed in column no.2 of the charge sheet and was subsequently summoned by the court. Investigating Officer during course of his testimony had admitted that as there was no direct evidence against the accused, he was placed in column no.2 and challan was accordingly filed in court. 26 All these gains credence in view of fact that name of the accused had not cropped up as the culprit during early stages of investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs R.N.Sharma on 17 February, 2010

To same effect reliance was placed upon State of Punjab Vs Jit Singh & Ors (AIR 1994 SC 549] 24 On perusal of records, this court is of considered opinion and finds itself in agreement with submissions made by learned counsel for accused to the effect that most of the prosecution witnesses have made substantial improvements while deposing in court as compared to their statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. PW.5,PW.6 and PW.10 have apparently 22 State Vs R.N.Sharma made substantial improvements and infact have substantially changed facts as had been mentioned by them in their statements recorded by the police. Not only this, there are some glaring contradictions in testimony of these witnesses interse. 25 It cannot be lost sight of that the accused had been placed in column no.2 of the charge sheet and was subsequently summoned by the court. Investigating Officer during course of his testimony had admitted that as there was no direct evidence against the accused, he was placed in column no.2 and challan was accordingly filed in court. 26 All these gains credence in view of fact that name of the accused had not cropped up as the culprit during early stages of investigation.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sanjay Bhatnagar (Page 1 Of 11) on 9 February, 2011

13. During the statement u/s 313 CrPC , accused termed it to be correct that on 21.10.2004 , at about 5:35 am at Bay no. 29 Apron Area of IGI Airport terminal I, he was driving the offending vehicle and accident took place due to which one Balbir Singh expired. The only defence of the accused was that he was not rash or negligent in his driving. Although, prosecution has examined twenty witnesses to prove that accused was driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner but PW1 Sh Rajeev Swaroop is the only material witness and alleged State vs Sanjay Bhatnagar (page 6 of 11) (P/7) FIR NO. 46/2004 u/s 279/304 A IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shobhna Sharma vs Cpwd on 31 August, 2017

12. In the light of our above discussions, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned communication dated 24.1.2014 (Annexure A/1) is quashed. The official respondents are directed to recalculate the vacancies in the post of Office Superintendent both under the seniority quota and LDCE quota for the year 2012-13 in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar and another (supra) and in All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and others (supra), and the instructions contained in the DoP&T's O.M. dated 19.1.2007(ibid) and to consider the cases of the applicants and other similarly placed persons for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent under LDCE/examination quota on the basis of the results of the LDCE held on 8th and 9th December 2012. After completing this Page 16 of 17 17 OA 347/14 exercise, the official respondents shall publish the result of the LDCE conducted by them on 8.3.2014 for filling the vacancies under LDCE quota which arose during 2013-14.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raji Vijayan vs Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar & Another) Providing ... on 11 August, 2015

19. It is stated by the respondents that some of the juniors of the applicant were given promotion much earlier than applicant because they are members of SCs/STs and hence they were granted promotion in the posts reserved for them. We do not find any illegality in granting accelerated promotions to the members belonging to SC/ST. However, with regard to promotions made to the six vacancies during the year 2006 and 2007 respondents contend that as excess promotions had been granted from 'promotion' quota the same had to be adjusted with the quota for 'LDCE' candidates and hence by way of adjustment of vacancies some of the postings were made by LDCE. Applicant points out that the officials at Sl.No. 21, 22, 24 to 30 and 35 to 38 in Annexure A/12 seniority list were promoted in LDCE quota. These promotions (except in the cases of SC/ST) and adjustments were made by the respondents on the basis of the post-based roster rather than the vacancy-based roster as per the requirements of the law laid down in Dr.Bhatnagar's case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Suni P.M vs Union Of India on 15 June, 2012

7. From the above discussion, it can be seen that if as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, the word "post" is interpreted as number of posts available and not number of vacancies, then it will be opposed to constitutional scheme under Article16(4) as held in Bhatnagar's case. Rule 9 will have to be interpreted, if possible, consistent with the constitutional scheme and save it from the vires of being violative of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in its judgment said that the word "post" cannot be understood to mean the number of posts available, but it has to be understood that the vacancies available and in the light of the same, we have no hesitation to hold for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Upper Division Clerk from the earmarked quota, the 25% from LDC is to be with reference to the number of vacancies to be filled up. This position has been clarified by the O.M at Annexure R- 5(a). In the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the Recruitment Rules to the post of UDC from against 25% quota available for the LDC based on number of vacancy is in any way arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Constitutional guarantees under Article 16 of Constitution of India rather than it is as understood and clarified in 1999 (2) SCC 330.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H K Dhanwani vs Revenue on 9 April, 2026

Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others (supra) is concerned, the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the promotees, who were promoted in 1991, claimed seniority over the direct ANKIT ANKITSAKLANI SAKL 2026.04.1 0 ANI 11:13:05 +05'30' 32 Item No. 36 O.A. No. 2651/2024 Court No. IV recruits who were substantively appointed at a prior point of time in 1990. In any case, the 1992 Rules did not fall for consideration in the said case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brijesh Moolvanshi vs Comm. Of Police on 20 October, 2021

Irshad (supra) but also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. R.N. Bhatnagar and another (supra) as well as OM dated 19.1.2007. Learned counsel for the applicants has added that the applicants have succeeded in the earlier round of litigation and such Order/Judgment of this Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, therefore, they are entitled for the benefits flowing from the said Order/Judgment as the same has attained finality and the impugned order dated 15 OA No.1810/2015 16.07.2013 deserves to be set aside and the OA deserves to be allowed.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next