Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Sh. Gaurav Singh vs Union Of India Through on 12 May, 2014 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Union Of India & Anr. Air 1989 1215 ... on 19 August, 2010

7. Shailender Singh 2.10.2008 The applicants are claiming benefits of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar(supra). However, findings, judgment and directions in N.R. Parmars case were based on its own facts wherein the Honble Supreme Court observed that not only the requisition but also the advertisement for direct recruitment was issued by SSC in the recruitment year in which direct recruits vacancies had arisen. The facts of the present case are not similar for the following reasons:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 222 - M Mir - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004

12. Arguing for private respondents Sh. Ajesh Luthra stated that respondents were promotees to the post of Income Tax Inspectors in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and have got themselves impleaded in this O.A. to bring the full facts of the case to the notice of this Court. Sh. Luthra, learned counsel stated that the factual situation prevailing in this case was quite distinct from that of N.R. Parmars case and that judgment is not applicable in the case of applicants herein. For this purpose the matter requires to be gone into in details to understand the intricacies involved. Learned counsel further stated that it is a settled legal proposition that where facts are different, the judgment does not have a precedential value. One additional fact can change the entire course. A judgment applicable only in the same factual matrix as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani & Ors., JT 2004(8)SC 171.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 516 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Abhijeet Sharma vs Union Of India on 1 August, 2013

the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 & 2 to comply with the directions given by Honble Apex Court in NR Parmars case (supra) and prepare the seniority of Inspectors of North West Region on the basis of principles laid down therein and thereafter consider the case of the eligible persons falling within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer. This exercise be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Similarly, the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal on 01.08.2013 in OA Nos. 233 and 234 of 2013 (Abhijeet Sharma & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) has pronounced judgment. This reads as follows:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ashutosh Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 2 November, 2010

23. Before we part with the case we deem it appropriate to alert the respondents that the judgement in Parmar is the law of the land as on today and it has to be necessarily implemented without any further delay. Similar judgments have also been passed by Ahmedabad Bench in OA-128/2013, OA-129/2013 and OA-145/2013 on 19.09.2013, Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in OA-429/2013 (Ashutosh Kumar & 38 Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) has given the same decision. Thus, learned counsel argued that the present O.A. deserves to be allowed.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1