Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)

Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board vs S. Ruban Peter And Others on 5 January, 1990

6. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing the above writ petitions. On the ground that they have to be allowed to study further and so they have challenged the conditions in para 4 in Clause VI in the prospectus. Such a prayer cannot be construed as it relates to service itself. Merely because as a service candidates, the petitioners have applied for admission for higher studies, it cannot be said that the matters relate to service, so as to approach the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Special Government Pleader relied on the decision reported in Railway Recruitment Board v. Rubin Peter (1990) 1 M.L.J. 373, referred to above, in which the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 8 - A S Anand - Full Document

S. Muthumanicakam vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 20 August, 1985

In support of the above submission, he relied on the decision reported in Muthumanickam, S. v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department 1985 Writ L.R. 357, Aditi Majumdar, Miss v. The Director Jawaharlal Nehru Institute, 1990 Writ L.R. 404, Lizzie Grade Rani (Minor) A. v. Director of Medical Education, and Suryanarayana Raju, Dr. G. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 1990 Writ L.R. 106. In all the above decisions it is held that the petitioners having applied in terms of the prospectus they cannot challenge the same subsequently, The petitioner in W.P. No. 3037 of 1997 has applied on the basis that there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against him. But his application was rejected as disciplinary proceedings are contemplated under Rule 17(b) as directed by the Government. So, the said argument will not apply to the petitioner in W.P. No. 3037 of 1997.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1