Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.28 seconds)
Anil Kumar Rathor vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 July, 2019 cites

Pushpendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Others on 25 January, 2010

The arguments of Sri S.K. Varma, Senior Advocate, are that the entire process of appointment is wholly arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of L.R. Manual and are politically motivated and thus bad in law. He has argued that even while taking administrative decisions the State Government is bound to act in a fair and reasonable manner and is bound to uphold the Rule of Law, which is the bed rock of the principles enshrined under Constitution of India. He has extensively argued that the entire process of appointment has been done at the instance of the recommendation made by the Minister of law and Justice and blindly followed by the State functionaries including under Secretary (Law) and the District magistrate. He has drawn our attention to the fact that no satisfaction whatsoever was recorded by the Minister of Justice, the Under Secretary or the District Magistrate in recommending the name of the seven persons, and that they have also ignored the recommendation made after following the due process of law by the District Magistrate in his recommendation dated 03.01.2018. He thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the appointments made to the post of DGC (Criminal) be quashed and the petitioner be granted the appointment in terms of the recommendation dated 03.01.2018. He has extensively relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and 17 others and followed by Pushpendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004

This Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and 17 others extensively considered the provision of LR Manual, the judgements of the Supreme Court and the scope of appointments made to the post of DGC and after considering the judgements of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and another, State of U.P. and another vs. Johri Mal, State of Punjab and another vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (supra) came to the conclusion that the salient features that can be culled out from the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 353 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Anr vs Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr on 30 March, 2016

This Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and 17 others extensively considered the provision of LR Manual, the judgements of the Supreme Court and the scope of appointments made to the post of DGC and after considering the judgements of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and another, State of U.P. and another vs. Johri Mal, State of Punjab and another vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (supra) came to the conclusion that the salient features that can be culled out from the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 117 - T S Thakur - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr on 13 November, 2013

This Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and 17 others extensively considered the provision of LR Manual, the judgements of the Supreme Court and the scope of appointments made to the post of DGC and after considering the judgements of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and another, State of U.P. and another vs. Johri Mal, State of Punjab and another vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal (supra) came to the conclusion that the salient features that can be culled out from the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 161 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 July, 2001

It is a well settled law that if an officer abdicated his power or duty on dictation of a superior authority, his action becomes illegal. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others17, Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others18, and the judgment of this Court in Madan Kumar and others v. District Magistrate, Auraiya and others."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 275 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Dipak Babaria & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 23 January, 2014

It is a well settled law that if an officer abdicated his power or duty on dictation of a superior authority, his action becomes illegal. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others17, Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others18, and the judgment of this Court in Madan Kumar and others v. District Magistrate, Auraiya and others."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 241 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Madan Kumar & Others vs D.M., Auraiya & Others on 13 March, 2013

It is a well settled law that if an officer abdicated his power or duty on dictation of a superior authority, his action becomes illegal. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and others17, Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others18, and the judgment of this Court in Madan Kumar and others v. District Magistrate, Auraiya and others."
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - P K Baghel - Full Document

State Of Up And Ors vs Ajay Kumar Sharma And Anr on 26 November, 2015

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and another, (2016) 15 SCC 289, State of U.P. and another vs. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714, State of Punjab and another vs. Brijeshwar Sngh Chahal and another, 2016 (6) SCC 1 and Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. vs. State of U.P. And Ors, 1991 1 SCC 212.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 10 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next