Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1131 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011

State vs . Daya Nand @ Anand on 13 April, 2022

8. PW3 cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel. In his cross examination, he stated that he had not checked any identity documents of the complainant. He further stated that he does not remember remember whether he had issued notice u/s 160 CrPC or not to any person in this case and whether he had kept on record any identity document qua the ownership of the alleged number from which the alleged call was made. He further stated that he does not remember whether he had interrogated the person who made call or received call to the alleged number. PW3 denied the suggestion that the number on which the alleged call came was not belonging to Dharambir or that the said was belonging to Narender. He further stated that he had not seized the mobile phone as well as SIM card of the complainant or the alleged person. PW3 further stated that complainant had not placed any voice record of accused person before him or that nothing was recovered from accused. He further denied the suggestion that the complainant had never stated to him that he had identified the FIR No. 60/15 State Vs. Daya nand Page no.5 of 11 Digitally signed by SURBHI SURBHI Date: 2022.04.13 15:50:10 +05'30' accused from his voice. He further denied the suggestion that accused falsely arrested in the present case and that he was deposing falsely. PW3 was discharged after Nil Cross examination.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.Ananthajothi vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented on 8 February, 2018

6.The Hon'ble Division Bench relied on Para-12 (1) of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court by stating that the person, who was appointed by deviating one of the elements in the selection process, which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised and back door entries appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. In para-13 of the judgment, it is further state that ?as far as the present case is concerned, the mode of recruitment through employment exchange was relaxed and the posts were directed to be filled up on contract basis on consolidated pay. As such, the case of the petitioners has to be considered under clause 12.1 of the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal case, which is also applied in the latest judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 (Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v.R.Govindaswamy and others)?.
Madras High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

J.Ananthajothi vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented on 8 February, 2018

6.The Hon'ble Division Bench relied on Para-12 (1) of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court by stating that the person, who was appointed by deviating one of the elements in the selection process, which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised and back door entries appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. In para-13 of the judgment, it is further state that ?as far as the present case is concerned, the mode of recruitment through employment exchange was relaxed and the posts were directed to be filled up on contract basis on consolidated pay. As such, the case of the petitioners has to be considered under clause 12.1 of the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal case, which is also applied in the latest judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 (Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai v.R.Govindaswamy and others)?.
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 9 October, 2015

In the present case also, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Clause (iii) of the aforesaid judgement in State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal (supra) and as such, no case for quashing the government order dated 13.8.2015 has been made out. Apart from this, the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any mala fide or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities in fixing the cut-off date as 31.3.1996 or that this cut-off date is wholly irrational.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Siraj Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 11 September, 2017

73. This Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Daya Lal and Ors.(supra) and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others (supra), has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - N Shukla - Full Document

A.Glory Marry vs The Secretary To Government on 27 February, 2019

In State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal [State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 340] , this Court has considered the scope of http://www.judis.nic.in 96 regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that part- time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said judgment is as under: (SCC pp. 435-36, para 12) “12. We may at the outset refer to the following well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
Madras High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

P.Prasath vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2019

“16.In State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal [State of http://www.judis.nic.in 29 Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 340] , this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said judgment is as under: (SCC pp. 435-36, para 12)
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

P.Prasath vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2019

“16.In State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal [State of http://www.judis.nic.in 29 Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 340] , this Court has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and this Court clearly laid down that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they do not work against any sanctioned posts. It was also held that part-time employees in government-run institutions can in no case claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Relevant excerpt from the said judgment is as under: (SCC pp. 435-36, para 12)
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next