Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
Raj Kumar Yadav vs Govt. Of Nctd on 3 February, 2016 cites

Sonia Gandhi & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 6 November, 2013

teaching) in the Delhi Government Health Services and if as a result of such assessment more posts of General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) and Junior Specialist (Specialist Grade III - non-teaching) are created, the benefit of the directions given in paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Sonia Gandhi's case (supra) would be made available to the applicants herein also.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 73 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

25. We have consciously noted the aforesaid decisions of this Court. The principle as has been laid down in Umadevi (supra) has also been applied in relation to the persons who were working on daily wages. According to us, the daily wagers are not appointees in the strict sense of the term 'appointment'. They do not hold a post. The scheme of alternative appointment framed for regular employees of abolished organisation cannot, therefore, confer a similar entitlement on the daily wagers of abolished organisation to such alternative employment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1670 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs V. Sadanandam & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 May, 1989

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Sadanandam, AIR 1989 SC 2060, the Apex Court could categorically rule that it is not for judicial bodies to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Executive in choosing the mode of recruitment or the categories from which the recruitment should be made as they are matters of policy decision falling exclusively within the purview of the Executive. Relevant excerpt of the said judgment reads thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 79 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 Next