Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 648 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998

A. Vijaya Sekaran vs The Secretary To Government on 22 April, 2019

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
Madras High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gobind R Bhugra vs Union Of India on 6 December, 2022

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)" (xvi) In Vishal Ashok Thorat and Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate and Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 3616, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that PIL in service matters is not maintainable." [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 8.3 In light of above citations, we are constrained to hold that the instant O.A is not maintainable on grounds of being a P.I.L. whose jurisdiction does not lie with this Tribunal.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.Krishnamoorthy vs Institution Of Mechanical Engineers ... on 25 January, 2016

In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, relying on Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in service matters, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of the orders passed by the Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

R. Ajayakumar vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2021

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)"
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Prasada Rao Vemireddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 March, 2019

In Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. BK.K. Mission V. Centenary College and others!ยง, the Supreme Court while adverting to judgments in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (referred supra), P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal AIR 2OLQSE 3815 (3011) 8 SCC 464 sense 15 HACY & MSM) WPEPILZ 381 2018 Reddy and others (referred supra) and other judgments, held as follows:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad vs State Of U.P. Throgh Principal ... on 24 August, 2020

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)"
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rubi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 24 August, 2020

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)"
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Gnanasambandam vs The District Collector on 14 February, 2019

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Selvam Flaubert vs Union Of India on 8 July, 2019

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

G.V.Vairam Santhosh vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 August, 2014

15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next