Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (3.21 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Raj And Ors vs Smt Anju Bala Sharma on 8 February, 2018

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

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:55:53 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Maya Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:54:10 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Ramswaroop Kaswan vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:53:36 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Manju Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:54:20 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Kulvinder Jeet Kour vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:54:05 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Ramjas Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:54:30 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Kalu Khatik vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:53:34 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Satrupa vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:54:11 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Sunita Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:53:38 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document

Bhom Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022

Further submissions were made that the order impugned dated 15.06.2022 was passed subject to decision in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Anju Bala : DBSAW No.271/2022, which appeal came to be decided in a Bunch, led by State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rekha Kumari : D.B.S.A.W. No.284/2022, wherein by judgment dated 17.08.2022, the Division Bench on account of post facto consent given by the Panchayati Raj Department, in the case of similarly placed employees i.e. surplus, upheld the orders of transfer, as in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mool Shanker (DBSAW No.683/2021, decided on 14.01.2022), it was laid down that post facto consent can also be accorded, however, the fact that for inter district transfer, the consent in terms of Rule 8 (iii) of (Downloaded on 19/09/2022 at 11:54:32 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-8828/2022] the Rules of 2011 was required, has not been negated, rather the same has been upheld and therefore, the requirement of compliance of the provision of Rule 8 in cases of surplus employees, cannot be done away by the respondents and consequently, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next