Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)
Yogiraj vs Home Department on 28 May, 2024 cites

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Mr. Puneet Saini, Adv. For Petitioner In ... on 31 August, 2022

8. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Hossain, when two medical boards have found that the petitioner unfit, then the Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of such expert bodies. The appointment being in Delhi Police, surely, the requirement of medical fitness would be of higher degree, as the nature of duties amongst many, including maintenance of law and order; including use of fire arms. The issue with regard to fitness of a person with identical deformity has been settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in K. M. Priyanka (supra), wherein in paragraph 8, this Court has held as under:-
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 881 - V Bakhru - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986

18. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. While deciding the said case, the 14 OA No. 589/2024 Item No.36/C-II Court referred to and relied upon its earlier judgments in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandlal Jaiswal, MANU/SC/0034/1986 and Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/0136/1987, in which the Court held that judicial interference with policy decision is permissible only if the decision is shown to be patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 869 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next