Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Sodagar Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 24 January, 1997

Tarik Doke And Ors. vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. on 12 April, 2007

22. Much emphasis has been put in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sodagar Singh (supra). That was also a case relating to relaxation of recruitment rules. Rule 8 of the Punjab Roadways (Ministerial) State Service Class III Rules, 1977 provided that no person shall be appointed to the service unless he has requisite qualifications and experience, as specified in the particular column. On a reading of Rule 8, the Apex Court found that was no clause for relaxation. It was under the circumstances that it was held that the Government could not have provided relaxation to the candidates.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

R.S. Atal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 July, 2012

6. Opposing the claims in the OA, Shri Rajesh Katyal, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit: (i) The prayer for regularization was hit by res judicata in view of a similar prayer having been made in the OA 1438/2002 and the rejection of the same by the Tribunal on merit. The aforesaid order having attained finality for want of challenge by the applicant would also be submitted; (ii) The reliance by the applicants counsel on the directions of the Tribunal in the OA 516/2006 would be averred to be misplaced. As per Shri Katyal, the respondents had not only amended the Rules but also considered the case of the applicant in the light of the amended Rules, but not found him as eligible. The directions for maintenance of status quo in respect of the applicant against the post, were thus no more applicable; (iii) The applicant who had initially been appointed only on ad hoc basis would be submitted to have no legal claim to the post and could be reverted at any time. The decision of the Apex Court in Sodagar Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors; [1997] INSC 72 would be adverted to contend that an ad hoc employee had only a limited right and could not claim indefinite continuance.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab State Through Collector vs Kartar Singh And Others on 24 October, 2013

4. In appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of suit on the ground of maintainability, the Court found that the plaintiff himself had not been a party to the proceedings and if suit had been filed on the basis of title, the Civil Court would still be competent to adjudicate upon the same. The Appellate Court had referred two decisions of this Court in Sodagar Singh and others Vs. Punjab State and others 1983 PLJ 40 and Punjab State Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others 1983 PLJ 40 to hold that the orders passed under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2013.10.25 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.241 of 1986 -3- could be still challenged before the Civil Court and Section 47 of the said Act could not bar the institution of the suit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Kannan - Full Document
1