Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)Section 6 in The Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Shiv Dass vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2007
28. Ms. Rath pointed out that on the other hand the vacancies
which were originally filled up by Respondent No.6 to 25 have
again fallen vacant and there was no stay against their being
offered for appointment through a fresh advertisement. The
subsequent development of Respondent Nos.6 to 25 being
absorbed as Junior Teachers and Primary School Teachers have
also not been challenged. She placed reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC
274; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 and
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566 to urge that
the claim of the Appellants was already belated and therefore had
to fail on that short ground.
State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995
28. Ms. Rath pointed out that on the other hand the vacancies
which were originally filled up by Respondent No.6 to 25 have
again fallen vacant and there was no stay against their being
offered for appointment through a fresh advertisement. The
subsequent development of Respondent Nos.6 to 25 being
absorbed as Junior Teachers and Primary School Teachers have
also not been challenged. She placed reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC
274; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 and
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566 to urge that
the claim of the Appellants was already belated and therefore had
to fail on that short ground.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
28. Ms. Rath pointed out that on the other hand the vacancies
which were originally filled up by Respondent No.6 to 25 have
again fallen vacant and there was no stay against their being
offered for appointment through a fresh advertisement. The
subsequent development of Respondent Nos.6 to 25 being
absorbed as Junior Teachers and Primary School Teachers have
also not been challenged. She placed reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court in Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC
274; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683 and
State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566 to urge that
the claim of the Appellants was already belated and therefore had
to fail on that short ground.
Article 243G in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1