election petitioner, Mr. Madan Mohan, whose nomination
as Congress candidate was rejected by the returning officer, has
challenged the election of respondents ... question and
his nomination as well as the nomination of petitioner were rejected.
The respondent 12 and the petitioner were, therefore, not "contesting
candidates
Good" in the ACR/APAR of the year
2008-2009, was rejected. The petitioner also seeks directions to the
W.P. (C) No. 5649 ... respondents have deliberately not disclosed the name of the Competent
Authority who rejected the representation of the Petitioner and such
deliberate suppression on the part
applicant against the grading awarded in his ACRs/APARs were rejected by the competent authority without providing valid reasons for the same, and the order ... CCIT, Ghaziabad and others. These representations of the applicant have been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 01.04.2013, details whereof have been given
APAR. On
20.9.2016, an order was passed by the appellants rejecting the
representation.
12. Aggrieved by the action of the appellants, the respondent filed ... pass a speaking order. Vide order dated
21.5.2018 the appellants rejected the representation once again. It is
this rejection and the grievance against the APAR
representation preferred by the petitioner seeking
review of the said decision was rejected by the second Office Order
1 "the Tribunal", hereinafter ... prayed that the aforesaid Office
Orders compulsorily retiring him from service and rejecting the
representation preferred by him thereagainst be set aside
postal ballots was taken up for counting, the
10th respondent had rejected a total of 102 votes, of which 1 (one)
vote was rejected ... Marking' and 101 (one
hundred and one) postal votes were rejected for the reason 'Voter
Unidentified'. He claimed that these postal ballots
postal ballots was taken up for counting, the
10th respondent had rejected a total of 102 votes, of which 1 (one)
vote was rejected ... Marking' and 101 (one
hundred and one) postal votes were rejected for the reason 'Voter
Unidentified'. He claimed that these postal ballots
June 2009, 20 July 2009 and 8 August 2011. The representations
were rejected on 5 August 2011 and 29 December 2011.
3. The petitioner instituted ... representations dated 9 June 2009 and 20 July 2009 were
rejected by the Additional Secretary (Water Resources) by order dated
5 August 2011, which read
also the
petitioner's grievance, that the respondent, in rejecting her promotion, has
acted mala fide and has deliberately attempted to deprive the petitioner ... convened and an order dated 10th October
2023 was passed, which rejected the promotion of the petitioner, on the
following grounds:
I. Petitioner
learned Single Judge of this Court, by which His Lordship rejected
the writ-application.
2. The
facts leading to the filing of the present appeal ... learned Single Judge, vide order dated 9th July, 2012, thought fit to
reject the writ-application summarily. His Lordship while rejecting
the writ-application, observed
