Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 2016 cites

M.P. Palanisamy & Ors vs A. Krishnan & Ors on 15 May, 2009

Similarly, in Palanisamy case (supra), challenge was to the seniority given to the regular appointees through Public Service Commission. Ad hoc employee were regularized but with the condition that they will be placed before regular selected employee, as the ad hoc employee had participated in the examination for regular selection and failed. Their appeals were dismissed and it was held that the ad hoc appointees initially remained silent on this condition but challenged it 11 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:07:13 ::: CWP No. 10763 of 2015 -12- after six years and High Court had rightly rejected their writ petitions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 42 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015

With regard to acquiescence/waiver/estoppels to challenge the selection, learned senior counsel for the private respondents has referred to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases of Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. Sivasubramaniyan and others, 2016 (1) SCC 454, Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand and others, 2011 (1) SCC 150, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others, 1995(3) SCC 486, Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008(4) SCC 171 and Shakuntla Devi v. Kurukshetra University, 1996 SCC Online P&H 1744.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 283 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 5 March, 2008

With regard to acquiescence/waiver/estoppels to challenge the selection, learned senior counsel for the private respondents has referred to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases of Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. Sivasubramaniyan and others, 2016 (1) SCC 454, Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand and others, 2011 (1) SCC 150, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others, 1995(3) SCC 486, Dhananjay Malik and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2008(4) SCC 171 and Shakuntla Devi v. Kurukshetra University, 1996 SCC Online P&H 1744.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 526 - H K Sema - Full Document

Accountant General, M.P vs S.K.Dubey & Anr on 29 February, 2012

With regard to statutory rules cannot be superseded by 10 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:07:13 ::: CWP No. 10763 of 2015 -11- Government instructions/order, learned senior counsel for the private respondents has referred to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases of The Accountant General, M.P v. S.K. Dubey and another, 2013(2) AJR 380, Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR 1967 SC 1910, State of Haryana v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur 1972 (2) SCC 188 and Guman Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1971 (2) SCC 452 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The judgments cited by learned senior counsel for the private with regard to the delay will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 41 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Rohtash Kumar Nehra And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 15 July, 2010

Reference can be made to a judgment passed by this Court in a case of Rohtak Kumar Nehra and another vs. U.O.I and others, passed in CWP No. 12505 of 2009, decided on 15.07.2010 whereby the petitioners were ex-personnel of the Indian Air Force and they were issued certificates with regard to technical qualification possessed by them. This Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No. 4 to treat the petitioners as degree holders, as the diploma along with requisite technical experience possessed by the petitioners is formally treated equivalent to the 'Degree in Engineering' by the Government of India.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - S Kant - Full Document

Hawa Singh &Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 9 March, 2010

This Court in a case of Hawa Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010(2) SCT 824 wherein the controversy was as to whether the "Unit Education Instructor Course" undertaken by the petitioners from the Army Educational Corps Training College and Center, Panchmarhi can be treated to be equivalent to J.B.T., so as to hold the petitioners eligible for appointment as JBT teacher in the State of Haryana. This Court while relying on Rule 6 and 6A of Ex Servicemen (Reemployment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1930 allowed the writ petition and observed in para 30, 31 and 32 as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mills Douglas Michael & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 April, 1996

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Mills Douglas Michael vs. Union of India, 1996(2) SCT 607 was examining a question with regard to interpretation of the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Inspectors of Central Excise, Income-tax etc. in relation to the out of date by which an ex-service man who is not a graduate can be deemed to be graduate on completion of 15 years of service in the Armed Forces. The writ petition was allowed by observing 23 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:07:13 ::: CWP No. 10763 of 2015 -24- in para 10 and 11 as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs University Of Rajasthan And Ors on 13 January, 1993

In the case of Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan & Others (1993 supp.(3) Supreme Court Cases 168) this Court has held that in the absence of fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. In view of our conclusion that the cut of date 1.8.92 has no application to the acquisition to deemed qualification of a graduate for ex-serviceman on completion of 15 years of service in the Armed Forces, and applying the ratio in Rekha Chaturvedi's case(supra) it must be held that a candidate who is not a graduate but is an ex- serviceman must complete 15 years of service by the last date of receipt of application i.e. 7.9.92 for being eligible to be considered for the recruitment to the post of Inspectors in Central Excise and Income Tax etc. 1992. Since admittedly, the appellant in the first case completed 15 25 of 33 ::: Downloaded on - 10-06-2016 21:07:13 ::: CWP No. 10763 of 2015 -26- years of service by 31.8.92 he was fully eligible for being considered and, therefore, the order of cancellation of his selection is wholly illegal. Accordingly the impugned order of Tribunal at Madras Bench is set aside and O.A. No. 658 of 1994 stands allowed. The appellant Doglas Michale be allowed to join the post for which he had been issued a letter of appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 328 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 Next