cites: 79212951 doctypes: judgments

High Court Of Delhi vs Devina Sharma on 14 March, 2022

13. With regard to grant of relaxation in upper age limit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma (Civil Appeal No.2016 of 2022) and the judgment of this Court in Nagen Bhoi & others v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.341 of 2023) and Sujit Kumar Padhy v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.36126 of 2021). By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court keeping in view the fact that the recruitment tests were not conducted during COVID-19 pandemic and there was a long gap between the two recruitment tests, the candidates who have become over aged by the time the advertisements were issued, the recruitment test took place immediately after COVID-19 were given age relaxation by virtue of the aforesaid judgment. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble // 14 // Supreme Court and this Court has also been given effect to by the respective Governments.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 28 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Yogendra Shrivastava on 7 October, 2009

The same could not have been taken away in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme // 26 // Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538. Further, the classification done under the Notification dated 15.01.2022 does not appear to be in conformity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the benefits under the Notification dated 11.01.2022 should have been made applicable to the recruitment process which have not been concluded by the time such notification was published.

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 167 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

All Manipur Pensioners' Association ... vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 24 March, 2005

Such classification would be hit by Article 14 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All Manipur Pensioners Association v. The State of Manipur and Others, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 625, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there cannot be class within class in an unreasonable manner thereby depriving the class within a class of certain benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit.

Gauhati High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 24 - T N Singh - Full Document

Sujit Kumar Padhi vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 19 October, 2023

In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner keeping in view the proposition of law laid down in the above noted judgments, prayed that this Court be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to consider grant of age relaxation to the Petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgments. Finally, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the rules of year 2016, under which, the present recruitment is taking place also provides for relaxation clause in the shape of Clause-17. Further, referring to the aforesaid Rule-17, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the State Government is vested with power to relax any of the provisions of the said rule wherever it feels expedient so to do, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing to any class or category of employees in the interest of the Public Service in consultation with the Commission.

Orissa High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - K R Mohapatra - Full Document

State Of Odisha And Another vs Sudipta Kumar Mohanty And Others on 19 July, 2017

26. While deciding the case of the present Petitioner, some of the factors which weighed on the mind of this Court are, (1) the Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and he has been given age relaxation upto 40 years whereas the in-service Government candidates have been given age relaxation upto 45 years, (2) no recruitment under the Sate Legal Services Rules, 2016 took place in between 2017 to 2021, although the rule provides that vacancies are required to be filled up every year. The aforesaid proposition is well supported by a judgment of this Court in State of Odisha & Anr. v. Sudpita Kumar Mohanty & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.8516 of 2015), (3) relaxation have been granted by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases by relaxing the upper age limit. Further, the Petitioner having approached this Court prior to the Gazette Notification dated 11.01.2022 and 15.01.2022, a right accrued in his favour vide Gazette Notification dated 11.01.2022.

Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Nagen Bhoi And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 27 January, 2023

13. With regard to grant of relaxation in upper age limit, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma (Civil Appeal No.2016 of 2022) and the judgment of this Court in Nagen Bhoi & others v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.341 of 2023) and Sujit Kumar Padhy v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.36126 of 2021). By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court keeping in view the fact that the recruitment tests were not conducted during COVID-19 pandemic and there was a long gap between the two recruitment tests, the candidates who have become over aged by the time the advertisements were issued, the recruitment test took place immediately after COVID-19 were given age relaxation by virtue of the aforesaid judgment. The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble // 14 // Supreme Court and this Court has also been given effect to by the respective Governments.

Orissa High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search