Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)Shambhu Singh Meena And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 19 April, 1995
38. The judgment delivered by Apex Court in Shambhu Singh Meena's case (supra) makes it clear that notification dated 30th November, 1991 was prospective. In these circumstances, there is no need to discuss the notification any more in this regard and we hold that notification dated 30th November,1991 which came into force from the date of its publication in Rajasthan Gazette i.e. 16.1.1992 is prospective.
State Of Rajasthan vs R. Dayal & Ors on 17 February, 1997
45. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. R.Dayal (supra) makes it clear that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the original Rules and not the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the Rules are required to be filled-in in accordance with the law existing as on the date when the vacancies arose.
S.K. Shukla & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 10 November, 2005
34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K.Shukla & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.(2006(1) SCC 314) considered the notification dated 23rd January, 2003 issued by State of Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and considered that a decision on the note-sheet was taken on 22.1.2003 and a communication was sent to the Government Press for publication of it on 23rd January, 2003, but in fact it was published as per record of the Government Press on 29th January, 2009 though it was notification dated 23rd January, 2003. The arms and ammunition were recovered from the house of Udai Pratap Singh on 23rd January, 2003 but review committee discussed the matter in detail and it was found that the notification under section 4(a) was not issued prior to the recovery of the arms and ammunition at the house of Udai Pratap Singh on 23rd January, 2003. The Hon'ble Apex Court opined that the view taken by the review committee to this extent is correct. The whole area was notified on 29th January, 2003 and not on 23rd January, 2003 the date of the notification. The Apex Court observed that the publication in the Gazette is essential as it affects the rights of the public. Para 18 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
Dr. Bajrang Lal Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 19 April, 1994
26. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. So far as submissions of respondents with regard to estoppel is concerned, it is mentioned that this is a matter of interpretation of notification dated 30.11.1991, therefore, in case any wrong submission was made earlier by State, the same will not be binding as there can not be any estoppel against statute. With regard to other submission that the rule applicable on the day when process started should be applied, it needs a clarification that it is not a case of selection through direct recruit, but it is a case of promotion, where rule applicable on the day when seat became available or vacant, will apply. So far as submissions regarding regaining of seniority etc. are concerned, the learned counsel for all the parties suggested and agreed that the arguments have already been heard in this regard in connected writ petition No.8104/2004 (Bajrang Lal Sharma vs. State of Raj.) and the same may be decided in that writ petition. The said writ petition and other connected matters are also being decided by us today by separate judgment.
Shanker Lal Verma And 13 Ors. vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 11 September, 1998
The larger Bench of this Court in Shanker Lal Verma's case (supra) considered the similar controversy and in Para 33 held as under:-
Section 5 in Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Prabha Tak (Smt.) vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 4 July, 2007
He narrated four grounds for holding the review DPC i.e. (i) a notification dated 30th November, 1991 amending the elegibility criteria for promotion; (ii) judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Singh Meena(supra) holding that notification dated 30th November, 1991 is prospective; (iii) directions issued by Single Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Smt.Prabha Tak vs. State of Raj. and (iv) directions of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Anil Chaplot vs. State of Rajasthan for bifurcating all the vacancies prior to amendment on 30th November, 1991 and after the amendment made in Rule on 30th November, 1991.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Adarsh Bhandar vs Sales Tax Officer on 9 May, 1957
(2) Messrs, Adarsh Bhandar vs. Sales Tax Officer, Alighar (AIR 1957 Allahabad 475 (Full Bench);