Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Kanwar Singh S/O Rati Ram vs The Director on 25 February, 2014 cites

Delhi Jal Board vs Mahinder Singh on 1 September, 2000

The Respondent has been palpably unfair to the Applicant. The right for consideration for promotion is held to be a fundamental right by the Honourable Supreme Court [See Delhi Jal Board V. Mahinder Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 210 and Ajit Singh and others V. The State of Punjab and others, AIR 1999 SC 3471]. The Respondent has clearly thwarted the prospects of the Applicants consideration by its inexcusable inaction, which borders on callousness. Operative part of the order reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By The ... vs P. Viswanathan, A. Parameswaran, K. ... on 28 January, 2003

13. The Recruitment Rules for the post of DEO (Science) have not yet been approved by the UPSC, though these had also been approved by the Corporation in 1997. Concurrence of UPSC is necessary for promotion to the post of DEO. It is a settled proposition of law that in such cases, service of an ad hoc employee can only be regularized from the date on which UPSCs concurrence has been received (See Union of India V. P. Srinivasulu, SLP No.10714/93 against the order of this Tribunal in OA number 1603/87 decided on 18.03.1993 and Jogla Paswan V. Union of India, OA number 1060/2007, decided on 18.07.2008). We, therefore, direct the Respondent-MCD to ensure the notification of the Recruitment Rules, as approved by the UPSC, and consider the regularization of the Applicant, as per the approved rules, to the post of DEO (Science), within six months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1