Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 641 (7.71 seconds)
Documents citing All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993

Rajeev Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P. & Others on 26 October, 2020

Consequently, the respondent concerned is directed to follow, the, post based roster w.e.f. 31.3.2003, for, preparing the seniority list, in accordance, with, the report of the Hon'ble Judges Committee, prepared, in the month of September, 2018 hence in accordance with the mandate, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in, a case titled as All India Judges' Association & Ors vs. Union of India, reported in (2002)4 SCC 247. However, it is clarified, that, induction into service from the category, of, legal practitioners prior to 31st March, 2003, shall remain unaffected, by, the report of the Hon'ble Judges' committee."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - A Chitkara - Full Document

Rajeev Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P & Ors on 11 March, 2020

Consequently, the respondent concerned is directed to follow, the, post based roster w.e.f. 31.3.2003, for, preparing the seniority list, in accordance, with, the report of the Hon'ble Judges Committee, prepared, in the month of September, 2018 hence in accordance with the mandate, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in, a case titled as All India Judges' Association & Ors vs. Union of India, reported in (2002)4 SCC 247. However, it is clarified, that, induction into service from the category, of, legal practitioners prior to 31st March, 2003, shall remain unaffected, by, the report of the Hon'ble Judges' committee.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Rajeev Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P & Ors on 11 March, 2020

Consequently, the respondent concerned is directed to follow, the, post based roster w.e.f. 31.3.2003, for, preparing the seniority list, in accordance, with, the report of the Hon'ble Judges Committee, prepared, in the month of September, 2018 hence in accordance with the mandate, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in, a case titled as All India Judges' Association & Ors vs. Union of India, reported in (2002)4 SCC 247. However, it is clarified, that, induction into service from the category, of, legal practitioners prior to 31st March, 2003, shall remain unaffected, by, the report of the Hon'ble Judges' committee.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 2 - S Sharma - Full Document

Harendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024

23.(a) The learned counsel for the High Court/respondent disputes the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned amendment cannot be said to violate Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. That the contention of the petitioners that para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 has been violated, cannot be accepted. That the High Court need not have sought any clarification in view of the fact that, no deviation is sought to be made by the High Court. The contention that various universities grant different marks to the candidates cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, a candidate should be meritorious irrespective of the institution from which he graduates. The contention that the impugned amendment has a retrospective effect cannot be accepted. That the impugned amendment is only prospective in nature and in no way can be said to be retrospective. It is effective from the date of publication and not from an earlier date.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Aashutosh Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024

23.(a) The learned counsel for the High Court/respondent disputes the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned amendment cannot be said to violate Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. That the contention of the petitioners that para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 has been violated, cannot be accepted. That the High Court need not have sought any clarification in view of the fact that, no deviation is sought to be made by the High Court. The contention that various universities grant different marks to the candidates cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, a candidate should be meritorious irrespective of the institution from which he graduates. The contention that the impugned amendment has a retrospective effect cannot be accepted. That the impugned amendment is only prospective in nature and in no way can be said to be retrospective. It is effective from the date of publication and not from an earlier date.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Garima Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024

23.(a) The learned counsel for the High Court/respondent disputes the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned amendment cannot be said to violate Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. That the contention of the petitioners that para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 has been violated, cannot be accepted. That the High Court need not have sought any clarification in view of the fact that, no deviation is sought to be made by the High Court. The contention that various universities grant different marks to the candidates cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, a candidate should be meritorious irrespective of the institution from which he graduates. The contention that the impugned amendment has a retrospective effect cannot be accepted. That the impugned amendment is only prospective in nature and in no way can be said to be retrospective. It is effective from the date of publication and not from an earlier date.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Neha Kothari vs The Hon High Court Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 1 April, 2024

23.(a) The learned counsel for the High Court/respondent disputes the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned amendment cannot be said to violate Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. That the contention of the petitioners that para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 has been violated, cannot be accepted. That the High Court need not have sought any clarification in view of the fact that, no deviation is sought to be made by the High Court. The contention that various universities grant different marks to the candidates cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, a candidate should be meritorious irrespective of the institution from which he graduates. The contention that the impugned amendment has a retrospective effect cannot be accepted. That the impugned amendment is only prospective in nature and in no way can be said to be retrospective. It is effective from the date of publication and not from an earlier date.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Sahil Khan Behna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024

23.(a) The learned counsel for the High Court/respondent disputes the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned amendment cannot be said to violate Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. That the contention of the petitioners that para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 has been violated, cannot be accepted. That the High Court need not have sought any clarification in view of the fact that, no deviation is sought to be made by the High Court. The contention that various universities grant different marks to the candidates cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, a candidate should be meritorious irrespective of the institution from which he graduates. The contention that the impugned amendment has a retrospective effect cannot be accepted. That the impugned amendment is only prospective in nature and in no way can be said to be retrospective. It is effective from the date of publication and not from an earlier date.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Abhishek Panchal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024

23.(a) The learned counsel for the High Court/respondent disputes the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned amendment cannot be said to violate Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. That the contention of the petitioners that para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 has been violated, cannot be accepted. That the High Court need not have sought any clarification in view of the fact that, no deviation is sought to be made by the High Court. The contention that various universities grant different marks to the candidates cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, a candidate should be meritorious irrespective of the institution from which he graduates. The contention that the impugned amendment has a retrospective effect cannot be accepted. That the impugned amendment is only prospective in nature and in no way can be said to be retrospective. It is effective from the date of publication and not from an earlier date.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document

Vanshika Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024

23.(a) The learned counsel for the High Court/respondent disputes the claim of the petitioners. He submits that the impugned amendment cannot be said to violate Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. That the contention of the petitioners that para 40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 has been violated, cannot be accepted. That the High Court need not have sought any clarification in view of the fact that, no deviation is sought to be made by the High Court. The contention that various universities grant different marks to the candidates cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, a candidate should be meritorious irrespective of the institution from which he graduates. The contention that the impugned amendment has a retrospective effect cannot be accepted. That the impugned amendment is only prospective in nature and in no way can be said to be retrospective. It is effective from the date of publication and not from an earlier date.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - R Malimath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next