Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.72 seconds)
Pawan Kumar Bardiya And Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr on 18 August, 2011 cites

Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors vs Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors on 14 September, 2006

In the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar & ors Vs Raja Narasaiah Gangiti & ors, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 261, the Apex Court did not interfere in the decision taken to relax the age. Thus, it becomes clear that, absolute discretion lies with the government to relax the rules in regard to age in appropriate case. Same view has been expressed in other judgments also as cited by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 173 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Hari Singh And Ors vs The Military Estate Officer And Anr on 3 May, 1972

Learned counsel for petitioners further submit that looking to the notification dated 23.9.2008 and the language used therein, petitioners should be deemed to be within age for the years in which no recruitment took place. The fact that advertisement was issued earlier or last date of submission of application was prior to the notification have no consequence because last date for determination of age is 1.1.2009 i.e. subsequent to notification dated 23.9.2008. A reference of the judgment in the case of Hari Singh & ors Vs The Military Estate Officer & anr reported in (1972) 2 SCC 239 has been given to show meaning of the word deemed used in the notification dated 23.9.2008 apart from the judgment in the case of Aligarh Muslim University & ors Vs Mansoor Ali Khan reported in AIR 2000 SC 2783. The prayer of the learned counsel is accordingly two fold; firstly to treat the petitioners within age looking to the delay in holding the recruitment and, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to grant relaxation in age to the petitioners in view of the Rules of 1960 and 1978.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 74 - A N Ray - Full Document

Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000

Learned counsel for petitioners further submit that looking to the notification dated 23.9.2008 and the language used therein, petitioners should be deemed to be within age for the years in which no recruitment took place. The fact that advertisement was issued earlier or last date of submission of application was prior to the notification have no consequence because last date for determination of age is 1.1.2009 i.e. subsequent to notification dated 23.9.2008. A reference of the judgment in the case of Hari Singh & ors Vs The Military Estate Officer & anr reported in (1972) 2 SCC 239 has been given to show meaning of the word deemed used in the notification dated 23.9.2008 apart from the judgment in the case of Aligarh Muslim University & ors Vs Mansoor Ali Khan reported in AIR 2000 SC 2783. The prayer of the learned counsel is accordingly two fold; firstly to treat the petitioners within age looking to the delay in holding the recruitment and, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to grant relaxation in age to the petitioners in view of the Rules of 1960 and 1978.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 604 - M J Rao - Full Document

Abhishek Sharma And Ors vs Raj Board Of Seconday And Ors on 19 March, 2010

In the case of Abhishek Sharma & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & anr, DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.731/2007, decided on 22.5.2007, this court issued similar directions to the Government for consideration of representation keeping in mind hardship of the appellant therein. That was also for grant of age relaxation under rule 46 applicable thereunder.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Sanjay Kumar Purohit & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 15 January, 2009

It is lastly contended by learned counsel for petitioners that advertisement was issued on 5.7.2008 and therein last date for submission of application was provided as 20.8.2008. The respondents issued a Notification for making amendment in the Rules to provide three years relaxation in age. The said Notification was issued on 23.9.2008 thus came into effect prior to completion of recruitment. The petitioners have been deprived to get benefit of aforesaid Notification, whereas, the State Government has provided benefit of age relaxation while holding selection to the post of Assistant Engineer vide advertisement dated 13.8.2008. Same way, benefits were given for the post of Prison Welfare Officer and many other posts. This court in the case of Indra Kumar Meena & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors reported in RLW 2009 (4) Rajasthan 2919 directed the respondents to consider the case for age relaxation in view of the past practice.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 1827 - P C Tatia - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Jagannath Achyut Karandikar on 8 March, 1989

In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Jagannath Achyut Karandikar reported in 1989 Suppl(1) SCC 393, it was held by the Apex Court that due to default of the government to hold departmental examination in time, the employee cannot be penalised by denying benefit of promotion more so when the government was under an obligation to hold examination every year.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 127 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1   2 Next