Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Neelam Kerketta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 7 March, 2024 cites

Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad on 5 December, 2018

26. The petitioners, by filing the present writ petitions, have claimed that the 'Diploma in Radiography' and 'Diploma in C.T Scan Technician' are same as the 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. The said claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained by this Court in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) and in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi (supra) wherein it has been held that the power of judicial review should not be exercised to determine the equivalence of any qualification, rather the same is within the domain of the employer which is determined by taking into consideration bundle of factors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 320 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 December, 2019

26. The petitioners, by filing the present writ petitions, have claimed that the 'Diploma in Radiography' and 'Diploma in C.T Scan Technician' are same as the 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician'. The said claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained by this Court in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) and in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi (supra) wherein it has been held that the power of judicial review should not be exercised to determine the equivalence of any qualification, rather the same is within the domain of the employer which is determined by taking into consideration bundle of factors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 34 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Anirudh Chaterjee And Anr., Navneet ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 11 March, 2004

32. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC also puts reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Kumar & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (LPA No. 693 of 2019) wherein it has been held that if a condition has been stipulated in the advertisement, it cannot be deviated in any way and if any deviation is made, the same amounts to relaxation which is not permissible in law.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - R K Merathia - Full Document

Ranjeet Prabhakar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 14 June, 2022

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this court in the case of Ranjeet Prabhakar Vs. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 1111, wherein it was held that since the appellant's exclusion from the merit list was illegal, his right to claim appointment on the post of Forest Guard did not extinguish by efflux of time as there was no laches or delay on his part in raising his claim.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2016

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts further reliance on a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 162, in which it was held that since no fresh exercise of recruitment had been undertaken, the remaining notified vacancy of one post continued to exist and it was in the interest of justice that the petitioner's candidature was to be considered for appointment against the remaining one vacancy available under the 4th Combined Limited Deputy Collector Recruitment Examination.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document

Vashist Narayan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 July, 2019

29. The observation made in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners since the facts and circumstance of the said case is totally different from that of the present case. In the case in hand, the petitioners do not hold the requisite qualification of possessing 'Diploma in X-Ray Technician', rather they are claiming that the courses of 'Diploma in Radiography' (with respect to the 15 petitioner-Neelam Kerketta) and 'Diploma in C.T. Scan Technician' (with respect to the petitioner-Mantu Rajwar) are equivalent to the course of 'Diploma in X-ray Technician' which this Court is not supposed to determine in exercise of power of judicial review.
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document
1