Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)Vinod Kumar Ram vs Banaras Hindu University Thru' Its ... on 30 July, 2010
(4) Vinod Kumar Ram Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and others passed in Writ Petition No. 14491 of 2008 on 26.11.2010.
Manoj Kumar Gautam And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 28 August, 2010
(5) Manoj Kumar Gaur Vs. State of U.P and ors. reported in [2009 (4) ADJ 89 (LB)]
(6) V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in [2009(120) FLR 164]
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana (Sawant, J.) on 4 May, 1994
(b) Honble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 138 highlighting following:-
Lic vs Asha Ramchandra Ambekar on 28 February, 1994
(c) Honble Supreme Court in its decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and another (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 718, has held as under:-
Punjab National Bank & Ors vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja on 16 August, 2004
(d) In the decision of Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265. The Honble Apex Court on page 268, Honble Supreme Court has held following observation:-
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Rani Devi & Anr on 15 July, 1996
Appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of making appointments on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis
As was observed in State of Haryana V. Rani Devi it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulation or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16
State Of J And K And Ors. vs Sajad Ahmed Mir on 17 July, 2006
State of J&K Vs. Sajab Ahmad Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766. Honble Supreme Court has held as under:-
The Applicants In This Case Have Sought A ... vs . Union Of India & Ors., Which Is Reported ... on 29 September, 2011
9. The respondents have justified the weightage point system citing orders of C.A.T. Ahmadabad Bench passed in O.A. NO. 377 of 2008 Shri H.C. Patel Vs. Union of India and others. The relevant portion of C.A.T. Ahmadabad Bench order reads as under:-
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1