Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)
Rajkumar Mahar vs State Of M.P. on 22 March, 2025 cites

Smt. Naseem Bano vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 August, 1993

6. A plain reading of appointment orders show that the petitioners were recruited pursuant to a Special Recruitment Drive. This is a matter of common knowledge that such drive is being initiated when certain numbers of posts are lving vacant and Government intends to fill up those posts as a special measure expeditiously. Thus, I find substance in the ument of Ms. Dadariya that it is difficult to accept that petitioners' appointments were made without there being any sanctioned posts. The categorical averment of petition that petitioners arc working against clear and vacant post is not specifically denied in the return. The respondents have not chosen to file para-wise return and rebut the averments of para 6.1 and 6.3 of the petition. The Apex Court in Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P., (1993) 4 SCC 46 has opined that if categorical averments of petition go unrebuted, said averments of petition can be presumed to be admitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 861 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1