Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.61 seconds)
Documents citing Suman Devi And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 July, 2017

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 2 April, 2022

question in terms of relevant advertisement and the prevailing service rules. A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. An advertisement issued calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. [Refer:(2021) 6 SCC 163, titled Suman Devi and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 2 April, 2022

question in terms of relevant advertisement and the prevailing service rules. A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. An advertisement issued calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. [Refer:(2021) 6 SCC 163, titled Suman Devi and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 2 April, 2022

question in terms of relevant advertisement and the prevailing service rules. A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. An advertisement issued calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. [Refer:(2021) 6 SCC 163, titled Suman Devi and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 2 April, 2022

question in terms of relevant advertisement and the prevailing service rules. A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. An advertisement issued calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. [Refer:(2021) 6 SCC 163, titled Suman Devi and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 2 April, 2022

question in terms of relevant advertisement and the prevailing service rules. A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. An advertisement issued calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. [Refer:(2021) 6 SCC 163, titled Suman Devi and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 2 April, 2022

question in terms of relevant advertisement and the prevailing service rules. A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. An advertisement issued calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. [Refer:(2021) 6 SCC 163, titled Suman Devi and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others].
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Dr Parag Shrikrishna Marathe vs Central Railway on 27 June, 2023

The applicant did not make any such application and directly applied to the HSER. Therefore, the respondents had no opportunity to bring the Rule position to the notice of the applicant, Therefore, the applicant cannot turn around and say that the respondents failed in their duty and therefore he be permitted to join back on duty. He submits that the principle of estoppel will not come into play for there cannot be estoppel against a statute. He has placed reliance on the case of Suman Devi and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2021 (2) §CC (L&S) 219, and on State of Nigam Saneharsh Samiti and Others, 2009 1) SCC A&S8) 2?
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next