Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Section 20 in The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
M.M. Dolichan & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 14 November, 2000
40. The respondents also dispute the applicability of the judgments
in S.K. Mathur (supra), M.M. Dolichan (supra), K.
Krishnamacharyulu (supra), and Manmohan Singh Jaitla (supra), on
the ground that those cases involved either Government-controlled
institutions, statutory recruitment processes, or situations where the
State had expressly assumed responsibility for staffing. It is contended
that none of those decisions apply where appointments were made by
a private unaided management in violation of the Recruitment Rules.
K. Krishnamacharayulu & Ors vs Sri Venkateswara Hindu College Of ... on 21 February, 1997
40. The respondents also dispute the applicability of the judgments
in S.K. Mathur (supra), M.M. Dolichan (supra), K.
Krishnamacharyulu (supra), and Manmohan Singh Jaitla (supra), on
the ground that those cases involved either Government-controlled
institutions, statutory recruitment processes, or situations where the
State had expressly assumed responsibility for staffing. It is contended
that none of those decisions apply where appointments were made by
a private unaided management in violation of the Recruitment Rules.
Manmohan Singh Jaitla, Etc. Etc vs The Commissioner. Union Territory ... on 19 December, 1984
40. The respondents also dispute the applicability of the judgments
in S.K. Mathur (supra), M.M. Dolichan (supra), K.
Krishnamacharyulu (supra), and Manmohan Singh Jaitla (supra), on
the ground that those cases involved either Government-controlled
institutions, statutory recruitment processes, or situations where the
State had expressly assumed responsibility for staffing. It is contended
that none of those decisions apply where appointments were made by
a private unaided management in violation of the Recruitment Rules.
S.K. Mathur & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 January, 1998
40. The respondents also dispute the applicability of the judgments
in S.K. Mathur (supra), M.M. Dolichan (supra), K.
Krishnamacharyulu (supra), and Manmohan Singh Jaitla (supra), on
the ground that those cases involved either Government-controlled
institutions, statutory recruitment processes, or situations where the
State had expressly assumed responsibility for staffing. It is contended
that none of those decisions apply where appointments were made by
a private unaided management in violation of the Recruitment Rules.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Harbhajan Kaur vs The Director Of Education (Nct Of Delhi) ... on 5 April, 2010
24. He submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal in the
Impugned Order holding that the Petitioners could not be treated as
government servants as their appointment was in a private school and
allegedly not in accordance with the rules, is directly contrary to the
view taken by this Court in Harbhajan Kaur (supra).
Sonia Bablani & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 May, 2021
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated
02.02.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal')
in T.A. 10/2016, titled Sonia Bablani & Ors v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
& Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order'), declining the
prayers of the petitioners herein.
Milan Rana vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 April, 2022
26. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the
Supreme Court, in Milan Rana v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (SLP
(C) No.1076/2021), has already applied the judgment in Harbhajan
Kaur (supra) to another teacher of the very same school who, like the
petitioners, had been appointed by the Authorised Officer after the
takeover.