Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Navdeep Singh Brar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 August, 2021 cites

Najma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 July, 2021

(27) Further, it is the specific case of the respondents that in the year 2020 (as alleged by the petitioners), no decision was taken by the Government to fill up the vacancies of Sub Inspectors. The stand of the respondents, on the contrary, deserves to be upheld inasmuch as the petitioners cannot seek enforcement of the alleged promise when its obligation is against the Constitutional or statutory provisions. Therefore, 4 Judgment/order dated 22.07.2021 passed in WP(C) No.8956/2020 (Najma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 12 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2021 00:24:50 ::: 203 - CWP-12723-2021 - 13 -
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - P M Singh - Full Document

Mangat Singh @ Manjit Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2017

(16) Mr. DK Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner (in CWP- 13337-2021) submits that the petitioners were eligible both in the year 2019 as well as in 2020 but because of inaction on the part of the respondents not to advertise the posts, the petitioners have missed their chance to compete for the said post. He further submits that in the present case, it is the case where the petitioners are not being allowed to participate in the 'game' and therefore, once the 'game' has not started, the principles that rules of 'game' cannot be changed are not attracted in the present case. He further submits that there are vast powers with the Government to fix the appropriate age for the aspirants/candidates keeping in view the overall public interest. (17) Mr. BS Dhatt, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-13893- 2021) has pleaded that this Court in CWP-25534-2016 (Mangat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decided on 03.02.2020 had issued appropriate directions to the competent authority therein to consider the case of the writ petitioner for granting them relaxation in the upper age limit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 19 - R Bahri - Full Document

Rachna & Ors. vs Union Of India on 22 March, 2017

(19) Mr. Garg has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.02.2021 passed in WP (C) No.1410 of 2020 (Rachna & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr.), has held that the objection taken by the respondents 8 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2021 00:24:50 ::: 203 - CWP-12723-2021 -9- that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners do not have the right, is without any force. Para 3 of the said judgment would show that the prayer in the writ petition was for seeking a mandamus/directions to declare that action of the respondents in not issuing appropriate policy for grant of an extra attempt to candidates for whom civil services examination 2020 would be last attempt as being violative of Articles 14, 19, 29 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had entertained the writ petition would show that the present petitioners who are similarly situated had a right to maintain the present writ petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - J R Midha - Full Document

Sushil Kumar Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 March, 2021

(20) Reference is made to the order dated 25.05.2021 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No.4924 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Singh & others vs. State of UP & Ors.) (P9) wherein the Court had issued interim directions to allow the petitioners therein to submit their application forms for the post of Sub Inspector who would be within the eligible limit as on 01.07.2018.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 93 - Y Varma - Full Document

Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011

(21) On the other hand, learned State counsel makes reference to the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP No.12569/2018 (Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors.), to submit that in that case on 14.01.2018, an advertisement was issued. The last date of application was 01.07.2018. Therein, it was pleaded that the last selection had taken place in the year 2015. She then refers to para 5&6 of the said judgment to say that in that case the learned State counsel was asked to seek instructions and on instruction, it was submitted on behalf of the State of UP that in the 2018 examination, the Government had taken a decision that such candidates who missed out merely because of date of reckoning for the selection in the 2018 shall be given one chance to compete. She submits that 9 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2021 00:24:50 ::: 203 - CWP-12723-2021 - 10 -
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 488 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next