Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2006

SCC 591, Kamaleshkumar Sharma vs. Yogeshkumar Gupta reported in AIR 1998 SCC 1021 and State of U.P. And others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others reported in 2006 (3) SCC 330 it has been held that filling up vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised could be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Therefore the directions (i) to (v) given para 24 of the impugned order are set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 244 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Aflatoon And Others vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Others on 23 August, 1974

"28 It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and the latches. The Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 12 W.P.No.22371 of 2022 parties crystallises in the interregnum.(vide Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt.Governor, Delhi and Ors. MANU/SC/0437/1974:
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 373 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1   2 Next