Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.54 seconds)
Union Of India vs Rakesh Kumar Ranjan on 21 November, 2019 cites

Rajiv Ranjan Singhlalan & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 21 August, 2006

This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid two writ pe- titions as these petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the com- mon order dated 06/08/2013 passed by the learned Central Administra- tive Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.471/2010 (Rakesh Ku- mar Ranjan Vs. Union of India & others) & Original Application No.472/2010 (Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & others) and common order dated 28/10/2013 passed in Review Application No.29/2013 (Union of India & others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan) and Re- view Application No.30/2013 (Union of India & others Vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh) respectively ignoring the ban imposed on alternative appointment for medically unfit candidates by Railway Board Circular dated 2 {W.P No. 21246/2013 & W.P No.21252/2013} 25/05/2009 and allowing the original applications with the direction to consider the case of the respondents, who were found medically unfit for the post of Traffic Apprentice, with direction to consider the case of the respondents for alternative appointment in the category for which they were found medically fit, within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order, considering that the circular dated 25 th May, 2009 is not applicable in the cases which were pending for consideration before the aforesaid date. In other words, the circular has prospective ef- fect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 8 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Smt. Beti Bai vs Lalta Prasad on 8 May, 2017

This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid two writ pe- titions as these petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the com- mon order dated 06/08/2013 passed by the learned Central Administra- tive Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.471/2010 (Rakesh Ku- mar Ranjan Vs. Union of India & others) & Original Application No.472/2010 (Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & others) and common order dated 28/10/2013 passed in Review Application No.29/2013 (Union of India & others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan) and Re- view Application No.30/2013 (Union of India & others Vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh) respectively ignoring the ban imposed on alternative appointment for medically unfit candidates by Railway Board Circular dated 2 {W.P No. 21246/2013 & W.P No.21252/2013} 25/05/2009 and allowing the original applications with the direction to consider the case of the respondents, who were found medically unfit for the post of Traffic Apprentice, with direction to consider the case of the respondents for alternative appointment in the category for which they were found medically fit, within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order, considering that the circular dated 25 th May, 2009 is not applicable in the cases which were pending for consideration before the aforesaid date. In other words, the circular has prospective ef- fect.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar Singhal vs Union Of India . on 8 July, 2016

This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid two writ pe- titions as these petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the com- mon order dated 06/08/2013 passed by the learned Central Administra- tive Tribunal, Jabalpur in Original Application No.471/2010 (Rakesh Ku- mar Ranjan Vs. Union of India & others) & Original Application No.472/2010 (Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India & others) and common order dated 28/10/2013 passed in Review Application No.29/2013 (Union of India & others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan) and Re- view Application No.30/2013 (Union of India & others Vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh) respectively ignoring the ban imposed on alternative appointment for medically unfit candidates by Railway Board Circular dated 2 {W.P No. 21246/2013 & W.P No.21252/2013} 25/05/2009 and allowing the original applications with the direction to consider the case of the respondents, who were found medically unfit for the post of Traffic Apprentice, with direction to consider the case of the respondents for alternative appointment in the category for which they were found medically fit, within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order, considering that the circular dated 25 th May, 2009 is not applicable in the cases which were pending for consideration before the aforesaid date. In other words, the circular has prospective ef- fect.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1