Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.56 seconds)
Malkeet Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 August, 2015 cites

Dr. K. Ramulu And Anr. Etc vs Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao And Ors on 15 January, 1997

19. It is true that in para 7, the Supreme Court noted that the pre-amended Rule 4, which continued to exist post-amendment, vide clause (ii) of the 2nd Proviso, gave the power to the State Government not to prepare the panel and to consider the cases though the vacancies were available at a later stage evidenced by the expression "or where the appointing authority does not consider it necessary" and thereafter once again noted a conscious decision not to fill up any pending vacancy till the process of amendment was completed, and notwithstanding that under the rules being considered by us there is no such provision, yet we feel that the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr.K. Ramulu‟s case (supra) is attracted; evidenced by the observations of the Supreme Court in para 12 of the decision in Dr.K.Ramulu‟s case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983

"Therefore, the mere fact of subsequent amendment does not take away the right to be LPA No.653/2012 Page 44 of 49 considered in accordance with the existing Rules. As a proposition of law, there is no dispute and cannot be disputed. But the question is whether the ratio in Rangaiah case would apply to the facts of this case. The Government therein merely amended the Rules, applied the amended Rules without taking any conscious decision not to fill up the existing vacancies pending amendment of the Rules on the date the new Rules came into force. (Underline emphasized)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 606 - Full Document
1