Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.05 seconds)
Indu Bala vs Dsssb on 7 November, 2025 cites

Richa Mishra vs State Of Chhatisgarh & Ors on 8 February, 2016

In Richa Mishra's case (supra) Rule 4 thereof provided for such age relaxation of the upper age limit upto 10 years. Her plea was that she had not been given the benefit of age relaxation 182 Item No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 36, 37 & 1 (supp.) /C-IV OA No. 4202/2025 & Batch even when she was an existing government servant, as she was working in the Excise Department of the State of Chhattisgarh and being a government servant, she was entitled to age relaxation for eight years. The case was rejected. In appeal, instead, she relied upon Rule 4 of the Rules 1997 wherein a relaxation of ten years is available to women candidates in addition to other relaxations in age.The whole controversy, ersy, therefore, revolved around the interplay of Rules, 1997 and Rules, 2000 as well as other rules. In said case, there were special rules meant for women candidates in respect of all posts in the State of MP, which was a special provision as applicable. Rules, 2005 were applicable, and as these Rules contained specific provisions for relaxation for women candidates on the applicability of Rules 1997.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 46 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ms. Seema vs Delhi Subordinate Selection Board ... on 20 May, 2014

3.6 The new Rules came into exsitence , in compliance with with the directions of Seema & Ors. vs DSSSB the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 430/2020 titled ""Seema &Ors.,,,, the matter was placed before and approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, for the adoption of a uniform age limit for both male and female candidates idates to ensure equality and uniformity. Accordingly, the existing RRs prescribing a maximum age of 30 years for both male and female candidates were duly vetted by the UPSC and approved by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi. Hence, the non-extension years of age relaxation to female candidates under the new extension of 10 years RRs is in accordance with the policy decision. DOPT guidelines, and directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

High Court Of Delhi vs Devina Sharma on 14 March, 2022

"21. It is well settled that while participating in the recruitment process, pr a candidate must possess the prescribed eligibility and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, there cannot be any relaxation in the requisite eligibility criteria. Admittedly, there is no provision for relaxation in minimum or upper age limit in the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Devina Sharma (supra), which is not applicable to the facts and Services provides that the circumstances of the present case. Rule 13 of Delhi Judicial Services examination will be held by the High Court in Delhi, preferably once a year, subject to vacancy position. This rule is different from Rule 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil providess that the examination for Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967, which provide selection of candidates shall as far as practicable be held annually.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 28 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next