Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 334 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors on 25 May, 2012

Vijay Kumar And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 10 March, 2020

16. It is noteworthy that in the order dated 26 th May 2017 disposing of SWP No. 990/2017, Vijay Kumar and others v. Union of India and Others, the writ petitioners had sought a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as mazdoor giving them preference over others for the reason they had served in the Kargil War Zone and grant relaxation of age. This writ petition was opposed on behalf of the official 5 LPA No. 36/2020 respondents by the learned ASGI who had submitted that last date of submission of applications pursuant to the advertisement dated 11th February 2017 was over and that case of these persons would be considered in future advertisements. It was based on this concession by the respondents that the writ petition was disposed of with the direction that in case the respondents made appointments to the posts of mazdoors in future, the cases of the petitioners may be considered giving them preference over other candidates having rendered services in the Kargil War Zone.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Pb. St. Elec. Board And Ors vs Kanta Kumari on 20 March, 2024

"16. We are also constrained to observe that no writ petition claiming benefit of ad hoc service towards seniority can be entertained and is liable to be dismissed out-rightly if all those employees whose seniority is likely to be affected are not impleaded as party respondents. There is not one but several such orders cited before us where none of the affected person was a party respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Kaul & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 610 has emphatically reiterated the settled position of law that the claim for re-determination of seniority cannot be 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2024 05:42:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040279 RSA-1149-1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:040279 4 entertained when it is likely to jeopardize the interest of those who have not been impleaded parties to the proceedings."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

S K Tripathy vs M/O Defence on 4 May, 2026

Further, in the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, (2012) 7 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of any junior promoted ignoring the claim of the petitioner, the petition cannot be maintained and suffers from non-joinder of the parties and, that, there cannot be any trace of doubt that an affected party has to be impleaded so that the doctrine of audi alteram partem is not put into any hazard. As discussed above, the applicant did not challenge the order of promotion of his so called juniors nor he has made them party, he seeks promotion w.e.f. 31.10.2002 by filing this OA on 10.12.2018, i.e. after more than one and half decade and by now it is about two and half decades, even without making anyone as a party, whose interest shall be adversely affected, which will also have adverse cascading effect to many others, who have meanwhile promoted to subsequent grade, in case the relief is granted to the applicant. Further, it is noticed that granting the benefit to the applicant, as prayed for in this OA, is likely to create a chaotic condition in administration because it may have effect on the RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.04 09:43:41 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00579 of 2018 punishments subsequently given to the applicant in culmination of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for his misdeed and misdemenour.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.G.Anderson vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 August, 2022

v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Bal Krishna Santosh Rao Albankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022

17. Similarly, in Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India this Court Signature Not Verified while considering the claim of candidates who, despite being higher in SAN merit, exercised their right to parity much after those who were though Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 2022.04.01 11:46:32 IST lo wer in merit but were diligently agitating their rights, this Court 4 observed that:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next