Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)

A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors vs Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors on 4 April, 2000

The Bench placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Stephen Joseph (supra), (supra) M.B. Joshi (supra) (supra), Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), (supra) and A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors., (2000) 4 SCC 30.. Importantly, the Court distinguished the facts of that case from those in K.K. Dixit Vs. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board (2015) 1 SCC 474, 474 12 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 23:25:12 ::: 13 CWP CWP-2832-2022 2022 and others connected matters observing that the issue before it did not concern any dispute inter se the Diploma holders and Degree holders. Relevant paragraphs of the judgement of the Division Bench are reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - R Pal - Full Document

K.K.Dixit & Ors vs Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors on 5 September, 2014

"Very recently, the same issue again came up before the Apex Court in K.K.Dixit Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & others 2014 (4) SCT 219 wherein the promotions were to the posts of Project Engineer (Senior) from amongst the Project Engineer (Juniors) who were Diploma holder holderss with 7 years total experience of service. The dispute was again between Diploma holders and the Degree holders. Accordingly, it was held that the qualifications of AIME and the experience of service had to be post the acquisition of the degree. In the present esent case, as noticed, the issue is not of any dispute inter se the Diploma holders and Degree holders. The Rules provide that a person has to be a graduate in Civil Engineering and he must have the experience of working either under Government, private employment mployment or on the academic side. In the alternative, the experience as a Consulting Engineer, Valuer of not less than 10 years, has been made mandatory, subject to certain conditions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 24 - S K Singh - Full Document

D. S. Garewal vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 11 December, 1958

on. Since the rule was originally intended to read "as such" in 2006, the 2021 correction rightly applies retrospectively from 14.11.2006. This is not a fresh amendment but a rectification of an error to reflect the true intent of the framers. Learned counsel sel placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.S. Garewal Vs. State of Punjab 1993 (3) SCT 503 503. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 59 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Satpal Antil Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 May, 1995

22. A three Judges Bench ofof this Court in Chandravathi P.K. & Ors. (supra) referred to a number of earlier judgments on the issue, including D. Stephen Joseph (supra), Satpal Antil v. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 419, Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), A.K. Raghumani Singh v. Gopal Chandra Nath Nath (2000) 4 SCC 30 and Pramod K. Pankaj v. State of Bihar (2004) 3 SCC 723 and quoted with approval of the last of these judgments. The principle laid down is that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule made thereunder or under the proviso appended appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, once an incumbent is appointed to the post according to rules, their seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 45 - G N Ray - Full Document

Jai Parkash Sharma And Anr vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 October, 2015

15. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2784 of 2015, titled as 'Jai 'Jai Prakash Sharma and Ors. v. Chief Commissione Commissionerr of Ors.' (decided on 01.10.2015), ruled in favour Income Tax, Haryana and Ors.' of the petitioners in that case, holding that it is not necessary to acquire the prescribed experience only after obtaining the educational qualification.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1   2 Next