Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.74 seconds)

A. S. Parmar & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 24 January, 1984

144. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of A. S. Parmar Vs. State of Haryana (supra) is not at all applicable in the case at hand, as under paragraph 8 of Page | 88 2026:JHHC:11185-DB the said judgment it has been mentioned that under Rule 6 (b) of the Punjab & Haryana Class-I Engineer Rules, the experience of eight years working as Assistant Engineer (Class-II) has been statutorily recognized as alternative qualification to that of the Degree by virtue of legislative indent, which is absent in Rule-8 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Class-I Rule of 1939, nor such legislative indent can be introduced by Judicial Fiat. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 23 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Md. Amin @ Sk. Md. Amin vs The State Of Bihar on 29 August, 2011

146. Thus, it is evident that since there is no such provision in Rule-8 of Bihar Engineering Services Class I Rules, 1939, which prescribes only qualification i.e. Degree or diploma in Engineering from an Indian Engineering College either by direct appointment or for appointment by way of promotion, the judgment of A.S. Pramar is totally non applicable in the present case and therefore does not supersedes the Division Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in S.K. Md. Amir Ansari Vs. State of Bihar (supra).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next