Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.45 seconds)Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
U.O.I. Thr. Govt. Of Pondicherry & Anr vs V. Ramakrishnan & Ors on 7 October, 2005
In the matter of Union of India and another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others : 2005(8) SCC 394, the same view has been reiterated and in para 32 of the judgment, the Court said:
Prasar Bharti & Ors vs Amarjeet Singh & Ors on 2 February, 2007
18. The Apex Court in Prasar Bharti and others Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others 2007 (2) SCALE 486 held that a person sent in a cadre outside his substantive cadre has no right to continue in foreign cadre and can be repatriated to his parent cadre at any point of time without assigning any reason.
Ashok Kumar Pandey Ii vs State Of U.P. & Others on 18 March, 2011
76. Now comes the submissions of learned counsel for the writ petitioners that judgments of this Court in Shailendra Kumar Pandey's case (supra) and Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava's case (supra) are holding the field and against both the above judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges the special appeals before the Division Bench of this Court and special leave petition before the Apex Court having been dismissed, the State is bound to follow the ratio of the aforesaid judgments and it is not open for the State to contend in these appeals that writ petitioners are not entitled for any direction for absorption in the Government department. . . ."
Gauri Shankar Gaur And Others, Etc. vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 August, 1993
21. A Division Bench of this court in the Gauri Shanker Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2005 (1) AWL 426 held as under:
U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & Ors vs Daya Ram Saroj & Ors on 11 December, 2006
In Uttar Pradesh Gram Panchyat Adhikari Sangh and others Vs. Days Ram Saroj and others, 2007(2) SCC 138 the Court has reiterated the same principles as has been laid down in the case of Kunal Nanda (supra) as quoted above.
State Of U.P. & Others vs Sunil Kumar Verma & Others on 29 July, 2010
The petitioners, therefore, had no right to claim any benefit even if their matter could have been governed by 1991 Rules contrary to what has been said by the Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) overruling the judgments taking a different view.
Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava And ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 29 April, 1999
76. Now comes the submissions of learned counsel for the writ petitioners that judgments of this Court in Shailendra Kumar Pandey's case (supra) and Bageshwari Prasad Srivastava's case (supra) are holding the field and against both the above judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges the special appeals before the Division Bench of this Court and special leave petition before the Apex Court having been dismissed, the State is bound to follow the ratio of the aforesaid judgments and it is not open for the State to contend in these appeals that writ petitioners are not entitled for any direction for absorption in the Government department. . . ."