Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs State Of H.P. & Others on 2 April, 2022 cites

Suman Devi And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 July, 2017

question in terms of relevant advertisement and the prevailing service rules. A person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. An advertisement issued calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. [Refer:(2021) 6 SCC 163, titled Suman Devi and Others vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others].
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - V K Bist - Full Document

Luxmi Kant & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & on 29 November, 2018

connected matters [(i) O.A. No. 3262 of 2016, titled Praveen Sagar vs. State of H.P. & others, (ii) O.A. No. 3307 of 2016, titled Laxmi Kant vs. State of H.P. & others] were allowed by the Tribunal on 27.11.2017. The competent authority was directed to consider the cases of the three original applicants for appointment as Police Constables (Male) in their respective categories against the posts kept vacant for them vide interim orders passed in their respective petitions by taking into consideration only those candidates who had fulfilled all the eligibility conditions including the qualifying service as on 15.3.2016 in terms of recruitment notice dated 10.2.2016.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - V S Thakur - Full Document
1