Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors on 3 April, 2006
In the circumstances we do not find any error in the judgment of the Single Judge or that of the Division Bench.
In case of Prem Ratan Modi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 39, decided by the Honble Rajasthan High Court while relying on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in Lordship in case of RPSC Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar (Civil Appeal No. 52/1993) decided on 08.02.1995 and in case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507, has refused to grant the benefit of age relaxation to the applicants therein beyond the period as provided in the relevant rules. The relevant para of the same reads as under:-
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Janta Land Promoters Limited ... on 27 October, 2014
In the case in hand, the State Government in its wisdom, has not provided benefit of age relaxation in the Rules of 1989 looking to the requirement of service in the police department, then it is not open to question the said decision of the State Government by claiming parity with other service rules or with other categories of service.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Meenu Goyal And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr on 23 July, 2015
The bunch of five O.As involve common facts and relief which allow us to hear these petitions together likewise as requested by the learned counsel for the parties and dispose of all these petitions by common order. For convenience, the facts are taken from O.A No. 060/01027/2014 titled Meenu & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors..
1