Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)
Sanjeev Yadav vs Staff Selection Commission on 10 November, 2016 cites

Department Of Forests And Wildlife ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 August, 2004

19. Learned counsel for the applicant had also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 04.08.2016 in WP (C) No. 5888/2015 in the case Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs. Union of India, and others related Writ Petitions, by filing only the first page and pages 190-194 of that judgment containing the conclusions. By citing the above Hon'ble High Court judgment, he had submitted that through this detailed 194 pages judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had held that Delhi continues to be a Union Territory, even after the Constitution (69th Amendment) Act, 1991 inserting Article 239 AA, making special provisions with respect to Delhi, and that Article 239 continues to be applicable to Government of NCT of Delhi, and that the insertion of Article 239AA of the Constitution has not diluted the application of Article 239 in any manner, whatsoever. It was further submitted that in Paragraph 304 (v), it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the matters connected with 'services' fall outside the purview of the Legislative Assembly of National Capital Territory of Delhi, and that the Lt. Governor of the NCT of Delhi shall, in respect of matters connected with services, exercise the powers 12 OA 458/2009 to discharge the functions of the Central Government, to the extent delegated to him from time to time by the President. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted a copy of the letter dated 25.07.2002 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA, in short) to the then Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, in which the same aspect of law, since clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Paragraph 304 (i) and (v) of their judgment had already been clarified by MHA as long back as on 25.07.2002.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - D K Jain - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission on 12 February, 2012

21. He also submitted that in the Writ Petition (Civil) 3584/2007 through the order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 15.05.2007, copy produced by him, the order dated 01.12.2006 passed in OA 1782/2005 (Manoj Kumar Verma (supra) had been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, as had been admitted by the applicant himself by filing Annexure A-7 of this amended OA. Learned counsel also filed a copy of the order dated 12.02.2012 in OA 4353/2010 (Pankaj Kumar and Ors Vs. Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman and Ors), in which another Coordinate Bench, after considering the order of the Coordinate Bench in Abhinandan Kumar (supra), and after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajni Dobhal (supra), dismissed the OA, holding that the applicants therein, working as Sub Inspector and Head Constable in Delhi Police, were not entitled to age relaxation, as available in the case of departmental employees for appointment in Central Government posts.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Verma And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 21 August, 2006

4. Aggrieved by that, the applicant has taken the ground that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjustified and unreasonable, and that if the respondents were having any such objections, they should not have even allowed him to take part in the Preliminary Examination, and once they had permitted him to take part in the Preliminary Examination, and he had qualified also, it was not open to them to take U turn, which was totally inappropriate. He has further taken the ground that in similar facts and circumstances, when an employee of the GNCT of Delhi was allowed to take part in the examination, and on qualifying the examination, he was denied appointment, this Tribunal had allowed OA no. 1732/2005 (Manoj Kumar Verma Vs. UOI and Ors) through order dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure A-6), through which the respondents were directed to consider the applicant's prayer for relaxation being granted to him as an employee of the Union Territory.
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - A Alam - Full Document
1   2 Next