Uttaranchal High Court | Non-communication of all the Service Rules does not indicate that there are no Rules
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division bench of Vipin Sanghi, C.J., and R.C. Khulbe, J., had held that merely because the
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division bench of Vipin Sanghi, C.J., and R.C. Khulbe, J., had held that merely because the
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the question raised in the instant petition that, whether the classification
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Punjab: Arun Narayan Gupta Chief Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, and Kamal Kishor Yadav, Commissioner of State
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed a petition which was filed praying for a direction to quash and set aside the
Jharkhand High Court: In a case relating to qualification to be appointed as a professor at Vinoba Bhave University, Anubha Rawat Choudhary,
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 41 Rr. 4 & 33, Ss. 96, 100 and Or. 20 R. 18 — Partition suit
Orissa High Court: S.K Panigrahi, J. dismissed the petition and remarked “no application for alteration of date of birth after five years
Supreme Court: Reversing the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court, the Bench of S. Abdul
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court whereby
Delhi High Court: Expressing that, RTI Act is a tool that facilitates the employees and officers in airing their grievances systematically, the
Madras High Court: S.M. Subramaniam, J., expressed that employees cannot seek any direction to fill up the post or claim a promotional
Supreme Court: The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has held that a voluntary retiree cannot seek retrospective promotion as
Supreme Court: The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ has observed that a right to promotion and subsequent benefits
Manipur High Court: Lanusungkum Jamir, J. allowed a petition pertaining to appointment/promotion of High School teachers. Petitioners along with respondent 3, 4,
Rajasthan High Court: A division bench of Akil Kureshi CJ and Madan Gopal Vyas J. dismissed the petition stating that nothing would
Supreme Court of India: While deciding the instant petition wherein the division bench of L. Nageshwar Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ., had
Supreme Court: While addressing the question of law with regard to lifespan of relinquishment of claim for consideration for promotion in educational
Supreme Court: While adjudicating the issue as to whether promotion scheme implemented by office memorandum supersedes recruitment regulations, the Division Bench of
Manipur High Court: Lanusungkum Jamir, J. decided on a petition which was filed praying for a direction to permit the applicants to
Supreme Court: In a case where a Constable’s name was recommended by the Superintendent of Police but the same was dropped down