Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Arpna Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others on 4 May, 2019 cites

Dr. Aarti Dhatwalia And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others on 12 April, 2017

13 As observed earlier, in so far as present writ petitions are concerned, the issues involved therein are no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749 and the judgment rendered by this Court in batch of petitions lead being CWP No. 581 of 2017 titled Dr. Aarti Dhatwalia vs. State of H.P. and, thus, are squarely covered by the ratio laid down therein.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

State Of U.P And Ors vs Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016

13 As observed earlier, in so far as present writ petitions are concerned, the issues involved therein are no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749 and the judgment rendered by this Court in batch of petitions lead being CWP No. 581 of 2017 titled Dr. Aarti Dhatwalia vs. State of H.P. and, thus, are squarely covered by the ratio laid down therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 187 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Gopal D. Tirthani & Ors on 28 July, 2003

regarding incentive marks can be termed as excessive and unreasonable? Regulation 9, as applicable, does not permit preparation of two merit lists, as predicated in State of M.P. v. Gopal D.Tirthani (2003) 7 SCC 83 . Regulation 9 is a complete Code. It prescribes the basis for determining the eligibilities of the candidates including the method to be adopted for determining the inter se merit, on the basis of one merit list of candidates appearing in the same NEET including by giving commensurate weightage of marks to the in-service candidates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 228 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1