Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999
30. Reliance is also placed on the observation in the above decision to
the effect that, "the State should only play the role of an impartial
employer in the inter se disputes between the employees." The
above observations are of no application in the present context.
Here there is no dispute between the two sets of employees. The
cause of action in the present case arose when the government
deleted the name of the Petitioner from the combined seniority
list of Junior Assistants. Opposite Parties 3 to 9 are Junior
Assistants in their own right, whereas the Petitioner has come on
deputation as Junior Assistant de hors the Rules.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs Sajal Kumar Roy & Ors on 19 October, 2006
The issue in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Sajal Kumar Roy (supra) was about age
relaxation. The issue here is not one of relaxation of educational
or experience requirements.
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others on 23 February, 2007
The issue in Ashok Kumar Sonkar
v. Union of India (supra) was about possessing the requisite
educational qualification for the post of Lecturer in "Tridosa
Vigyan" in the Banaras Hindu University.
S.Sumnyan & Ors vs Limi Niri & Ors on 20 April, 2010
31. Once the initial appointment as Junior Assistant is shown to be
illegal, the plea of limitation to question such appointment cannot
possibly be countenanced. Therefore, the reliance by earned
counsel for the Petitioner on the decision in S. Sumnyan v. Limi
Nini (supra) appears misplaced.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel vs Uoi And Anr on 16 July, 2012
In Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel (supra) a distinction was sought
to be made between "transfer on deputation" and "appointment
on deputation" and it was explained as under -
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Harshit Agarwal vs Union Of India on 8 February, 2021
38. Turning to the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner, Harshit
Agarwal (supra) it had to do with the non-acceptance of the
recommendation of the Dental Council of India to lower the
qualifying cut off percentile.