Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.38 seconds)
Mrigendra Singh vs High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025 cites

All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16332 2025:MPHC examination and after successful successfully cleared the same, they were appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). Now they have been serving approximately for 9 years but the said provisional select list which was published by the respondent No.2 had clearly mentioned that result/all steps tak taken en on the basis of amended proviso will be subject to final outcome of this petition. All the candidates were aware about that their appointments are subject to outcome of this petition. Hence, they cannot claim as a right to be appointed to such higher post po for which they are not eligible to be appointed under the garb of impugned proviso which was violative of constitutional mandate and judgments passed by the Apex Court in All India Judges' Association case, 2002 and 2010.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 482 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Mishra And Ors on 25 August, 1998

"15. Even as regards the filing of a public interest litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR 1999 SC 114] , Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590 : A AIR IR 2005 SC 540] and Neetu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614 : AIR 2007 SC 758])."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 445 - Full Document

Rameshwar Dayal vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 5 December, 1960

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16332 2025:MPHC to mean Judicial Service. Again while the first clause makes consultation by the Governor of the State with the High Court necessary, the second clause requires that the High Court must recommend a perperson son for appointment as a District Judge. It is only in respect of the persons covered by the second clause that there is a requirement that a person shall be eligible for appointment as District Judge if he has been an advocate or a pleader for not less th than an 7 years. In other words, in the case of candidates who are not members of a Judicial Service they must have been advocates or pleaders for not less than 7 years and they have to be recommended by the High Court before they may be appointed as District JJudges, udges, while in the case of candidates who are members of a Judicial Service the 7 years' rule has no application but there has to be consultation with the High Court. A clear distinction is made between the two sources of recruitment and the dichotomy is maintained. The two streams are separate until they come together by appointment. Obviously the same ship cannot sail both the streams simultaneously. The dichotomy is clearly brought out by S.K. Das, J. in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of Punjab [AIR 1961 SC 816816 : (1961) 2 SCR 874 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 58 - S K Das - Full Document

Malik Mazhar Sultan vs U.P. Public Service Commission Through ... on 26 September, 2023

50. The he Supreme Court was monitoring the filling up of the vacancies in the subordinate judiciary in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and others reported in (2008) 17 SCC 703 as to how the different High Courts are filling up the vacancies. The High Court had to evolve a criteria to fill up the vacancies. When the Chief Justices conference recommends to evolve a system within the existing legal framework, it would necessarily Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Signing time: 04-04-2025 19:47:07 ..37..
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2004

"15. Even as regards the filing of a public interest litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 : AIR 1999 SC 114] , Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590 : A AIR IR 2005 SC 540] and Neetu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614 : AIR 2007 SC 758])."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 309 - A Pasayat - Full Document

All India Judges Association And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 March, 2002

31. We are not impressed by the submission that when this Court has interpreted the meaning of service in Article 233(2) to mean judicial service, judicial officers are eligib eligible as against the posts reserved for the advocates/pleaders. Article 233(2) starts with the negative "not", which disentitles the claim of judicial officers against the post reserved for the practising advocates/pleaders. They can be promoted to that post as per the rules; this Court has further laid down a wider horizon to in in-service candidates in All India Judges Assn. [All India Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 147 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next