Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 72 (2.81 seconds)
Documents citing Arun Kumar Nayak vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 September, 2006

Manik Chandra Das vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 18 May, 2007

14. The submissions of the learned Counsel of the State respondents that the Supreme Court in the case of K.BN. Visweshwara Rao (supra) did not declare any law and the specific observations of the Supreme Court mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the judgment in Arun Kumar Nayak's case (supra) is nothing but a passing remark in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Debasish Duttaa v. State of West Bengal (supra) cannot be accepted as we find that in the case of Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India and Ors. Supreme Court has specifically held:
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document

Chetandan Dhirajbhai Gadhavi vs State Of Gujarat And 2 Ors. on 21 March, 2007

7. Learned advocate, Mr.Kanabar, relied upon the another decision in case of Arun Kumar Nayak (Supra ). In the aforesaid decision, the question which was examined by the Apex Court that initially names were called from employment exchange and subsequently post has been advertised by notification. That question was raised before the Apex Court to the effect that subsequent notification is bad. The answer given by the Apex Court that subsequent notification is valid. It required to be circulated amongst all the eligible candidates and there is nothing wrong. Merely advertisement has been issued subsequent to the calling the names from the employment exchange. Therefore, this judgment is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the facts of this case, initially advertisement were issued and subsequently names called from the employment exchange according to GR dated 14.6.2006. Therefore, according to my opinion, none of the authority which has been relied upon by learned advocate, Mr.Kanabar, is applicable to the facts of this case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Gaya Nath Rajbanshi vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 6 March, 2007

The Division Bench Judgment as referred to in the case Gopal Sinha v. Palas Sarkar reported in 2007(1) CHN 42 as referred to, to contend that the writ application should be allowed, we are of the view that even on reading of the paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the said Judgment we are not finding any merit for applicability in the instant case wherein we have applied the ratio decidendi of the Judgment passed in the case Visweshwara Rao (supra) and finding of the Apex Court for declaring the same as law of the land in the subsequent Judgment Arun Kumar Nayak (supra), As already discussed that the Apex Court neither in the case Visweshwara Rao (supra) nor in Arun Kumar Nayak (supra) held that a non sponsored candidate without any advertisement of the post in the dally newspapers should be allowed to appear in the interview by his own accord or as per the sweet will of the employer on breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, denying the identical treatment to other identically placed non-sponsored candidates duly qualified for the post, which has been considered in this case for our decision.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - P K Ray - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next