Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Anant Kumar vs Railway Recruitment Cell(E R) on 27 February, 2026 cites

Aryan Raj vs Chandigarh Administration on 8 July, 2020

7. In view of the above, the impugned speaking order dated 05.06.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the applicant afresh in the light of the principles laid down in Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration (supra) and other applicable precedents relating to horizontal reservation for PwBD candidates, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The outcome shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. 7.1. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate entitlement of the applicant.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Anamol Bhandari (Minor) Through His ... vs Delhi Technological University on 13 September, 2012

However, the impugned speaking order does not reflect examination of the applicant's claim in the light of the binding principles laid down in the case of Anamol Bhandari (supra) decided by the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi followed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aryan Raj (supra) and other related precedents. The rejection is founded primarily on the proposition that only one horizontal benefit can be granted, without analysing whether such interpretation results in denial of statutory protection Digitally signed by UTKARSH JHA UTKARSH DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=5165, OID.2.5.4.65= 133594473126687154pySd3T548hJkYS, Phone= d9b37d12604e22491616e4be43745443ceb9dc6b6c897b9b058b2c8 0169b65de, PostalCode=812001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac7172b7b88641da0dc7e7 1dd7d0a, CN=UTKARSH JHA JHA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1