Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 495 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Sarla Sirohi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 25 August, 2010

Madan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 July, 2020

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plea raised by the respondents, in view of the judgment in the case of Anita & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ No. 16572/2018, 02.04.2019, has lost significance, inasmuch as, Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Karamchari) Service Rules, 2012 ('Rules of 2012') has been struck down and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the respondents has no substance.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Urn: Cw / 29468U / 2021Maina vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:21045) on 4 May, 2026

2. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16572/2018 (Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has set aside the rule requiring not more than two children for appointment vide judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2019. Once the Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 has been declared ultra vires, the concerned stipulation in the advertisement would also be deemed to have been deleted. Any affidavit filed with regard to the said stipulation, therefore, will have to be treated as having become redundant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Bhati - Full Document

Urn: Cw / 29492U / 2021Suman vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:21261) on 5 May, 2026

2. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16572/2018 (Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has set aside the rule requiring not more than two children for appointment vide judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2019. Once the Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 has been declared ultra vires, the concerned stipulation in the advertisement would also be deemed to have been deleted. Any affidavit filed with regard to the said stipulation, therefore, will have to be treated as having become redundant.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Bhati - Full Document

Sampat Lal Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they have been interpreted many times over and its compliance has been held to be mandatory; the reference in this regard may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker :
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Asha Rajput vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they have been interpreted many times over and its compliance has been held to be mandatory; the reference in this regard may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker :
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Sonal Ben Patel vs The State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Coming to the provisions of Rule 8, they have been interpreted many times over and its compliance has been held to be mandatory; the reference in this regard may be made to the orders in Kiran Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14964/2019 decided on 15.01.2020, Krishna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.312/2021 decided on 02.08.2021 and State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker :
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next