Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.76 seconds)
Kaushik Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 May, 2024 cites

Narendra Pratap Narain Singh And Anr vs State Of U.P on 3 April, 1991

13. The first issue to be considered is as to whether the CITS is a mandatory qualification; as one issued under Article 73 of the Constitution of India. It has to be noticed that a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Berojgar Audhyogik Kalyan Samiti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; MANU/UP/0024/23, has held; based on the changes modifying the mandatory nature of the CITS to a Patna High Court CWJC No.15816 of 2023 dt.17-05-2024 19/35 desirable one, that Upendra Narain Singh (supra) as affirmed by a Division Bench is of no help to the petitioners therein who had also raised a similar challenge against the selection, asserting the mandatory nature of the CITS.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 189 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Rajesh Dnyaneshwar Rathod And Another vs Balu Namdeo Bhosale And Others on 24 August, 2023

14. We also refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Rajesh & Ors Vs. Balu & Anr, in Writ Petition No. 2654 of 2023 and analogous cases produced as Annexure- P/2 in CWJC No. 15816 of 2023, by the intervenors. After extracting Articles 73, 246, 254 and 309 as also Entry 66 in List-I and Entry 25 in List-III of the VII th Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Division Bench held so in paragraph nos. 14 to 19, extracted hereinbelow: -
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document
1   2 3 Next