Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Lajwanti D/O Sh. Ratten Lal Saini vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 17 March, 2009
9. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment in Ms. Monikas case, delivered on 09.09.2009, as mentioned above, in which it was mentioned by the Bench that the Honble High Court of Delhi has in Writ Petition No. 8905/2007 in Lajwanti Vs. Govt. of NCT, observed that MPHW has been held as apt for appointment as Auxiliary Nurse/Midwife, ANM and in those terms, the directions had been issued in the OA filed by the said Ms. Monika. We have not had the benefit of perusing the cited judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court, as it was not filed before us by either of the parties.
S.S. Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 1989
13. It was further submitted by the respondents that the applicant and her father have only filed applications under the RTI Act, 2005, but have not made any representation to the respondents for the redressal of their grievances directly, and in that sense the applicant in this case has not exhausted the alternative departmental remedies available to her in terms of the Apex Court decision in S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10. It was also submitted by the respondents that the applicant has not come with clean hands before this Tribunal, in that the actual date of conduct of the examination has been suppressed by the applicant, and she has only tried to build up her case on the basis of the information received by her father under the RTI Act.
R.S. Garg vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 27 July, 2006
It was further submitted that the same question of permitting departure from the qualifications as laid down for appointment was again discussed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2006 SC 2912, in which, after considering Suraj Parkash Guptas case (supra), the Honble Apex Court had said that it would not be a mere irregularity, when a person not eligible would be considered for promotion, and when an eligibility criteria has been provided for in the Rules for the purpose, the same must be strictly complied with, as any deviation or departure therefrom would render the action void.
T.K. Bhardwaj vs Director General Of Audit & Others on 13 May, 2011
In this context, respondents cited the judgment of the Honble High Court dated 13.05.2001 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2610/2011 (T.K. Bhardwaj v. Director General of Audit & Others), in which the Honble Delhi High Court had followed its own order in the case of Dr. Satya Prakash v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, ILR (2009) VI Delhi 119, to reiterate that repeated representations do not extend the period of limitation.
The Delhi Police Act, 1978
Section 21 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
It was further submitted that the Honble Apex Court has said in the case of State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Others, (2006) 1 SCC 667, that the Executive does not have the powers to make recruitment dehors the statutory rules.
Surender Kumar S/O Harpal Singh And ... vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 27 March, 2008
In this respect, the respondents had relied upon the judgment dated 27.03.2008 in OA No. 630/2008 with OA NO.631/2008, Surender Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board in which it was held by this Tribunal that merely because the applicant was allowed to appear in the written and driving tests would not show that he was eligible for appointment under reserved category for which he (Surender Kumar) had applied for.
Monika D/O Shri Krishan vs The Delhi Subordinate Services ... on 26 March, 2009
In support of her contention, the applicant has relied upon the judgment order in the case of Monika vs. Delhi Subordinate Services, Selection Board & Others, decided on 09.09.2009 in OA No. 1248/2009, a copy of which has been filed by her at pages 19 & 20 of the OA. Apparently, that case also was decided on the basis of an RTI information reply obtained by Ms. Monika, the applicant of that OA, which information reply the present applicant has filed as Annexure A-4 dated 05.02.2009.