Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Gajendra Singh Rathaur vs State Of Chhattisgarh 9 Wpc/2389/2018 ... on 27 August, 2018

Chhinder Pal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 May, 2023

4. After hearing learned counsel or the parties and perusing record, this Court is of the opinion that the law laid down by this Court in Roopa Ram Meghwal (supra) while following Pinal Singh Ranawat (supra) and Shivom Gupta (supra) read with judgment of Gajendra Singh (supra) clearly indicate that a person having qualification of Computer Application in graduation shall been titled to be considered as qualified for the computer qualification (Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:30:10 PM) [2023/RJJD/012958] (4 of 4) [CW-2071/2023] or any Diploma or Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (COPA) or Data Preparation and Computer Software (DPCS). This Court also finds that the respondents themselves have included a degree in Computer Science in their notification dated 14.3.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, which is further clarified by the order dated 11.7.2018, whereby the subject of Computer in degree may be optional, compulsory or additional.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V K Mathur - Full Document

Surendra Singh Yadav vs Hariom Jatav on 28 July, 2025

9. As far as the citations relied upon by the appellant in the cases of Nur Ahamad Abdulsab Kanavi (supra), Hare Krushna Mahanta (supra), Balveer Singh & Ors. (supra), Manoj Rathaur (supra) and S.Perumal (supra) are concerned, they are distinguishable on facts, having regard to the factual matrix of the present case. Therefore, the law laid down in aforesaid cases are not helpful to the claimant in the present matter.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surendra Singh Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2019

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is in accord with the ruling in Gajendra Singh's case (supra). This Court does not wish to disturb the appointments made but expresses its reservation with respect to stand of the RPSC, which seems to (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 12:39:49 AM) (2 of 2) [SAW-89/2019] have prevalence over the issue of equivalence. It is settled and accepted position in law that the question of equivalence is decided by the employer-in the present case, the State of Rajasthan.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramakant Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 November, 2022

Shri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of instructions states that earlier Dying in Harness Rules applicable to State Government employees were made applicable to the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation also, but as the Corporation was running in losses and therefore, the Board has passed a Resolution not to make any appointment on compassionate ground. Such Resolution dated 30.03.2000 was passed in pursuance of Government Order dated 22.01.2000. The validity of the Resolution on the Government order has been considered by this Court in several writ petitions and in Special Appeals also by Division Benches and counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the order dated 29.07.2011 passed in Writ A No. 39547 of 2021 (Gajendra Singh versus State of U.P. Thru G.M., U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp. & Othrs and order dated 24.09.2014 passed in Writ A No. 51885 of 2014 (Deepak Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. and 2 Ors.) by passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

Jasram Rathaur vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2025

1. This application under Section 529 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as B.N.S.S.) has been filed with a prayer to direct the learned trial court to decide Complaint Case No. 2511 of 2022, (Jasram Rathaur Vs. Saurabh Mishra), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Et, District Jalaun, pending before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Jalaun at Orai, expeditiously within a stipulated period.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gajendra Singh vs Shrawan Kumar Mishra on 6 November, 2025

"(a) Direct the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 7. Farrukhabad to decide temporary injunction application 6-C2 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in Original Suit No. 383 of 2025 (Gajendra Singh Vs. Shrawan Kumar Mishra) within time bound period, which may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in accordance with law and further during the pendency of the suit or till the disposal of 6-C2 application, the, parties of the suit may kindly be directed to maintain status quo with regard to property in suit."
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next