Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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
Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: The Full Bench of P. Padman Surasena, E.A.G.R Amarasekara and A.H.M.D Nawaz,
Supreme Court: The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy*, JJ has held that if a regular promotion is offered but
Supreme Court: The 3-Judges Bench comprising of D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., set aside the seniority list prepared by
In 2011, the bench of RV Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ laid down principles relating to promotion and upgradation.
“No one has questioned their appointments…more than 34 years have rolled by and much water has flown in the Ganges and persons have later promoted to their promotional posts and few of them have retired.”
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Alok Kumar Verma, JJ., decided on a petition which was filed
Tripura High Court: Arinadm Lodh, J., decided in the matter wherein four of the petitioners were holding the post of Chief Inspector
“Having tendered ‘resignation’, the respondent had to suffer the consequences and could not be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was ‘premature retirement’ and not ‘resignation’.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., held that length of service in the cadre in which the seniority is
“… sometimes it is easier to bring a legislation into force but far more difficult to change the social mind set which would endeavour to find ways and means to defeat the intent of the Act enacted… .”
Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J., allowed a writ petition which was filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the advertisement
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Division Bench of Tashi Rabstan and Ali Mohammad Magrey, JJ., addressed the instant petition seeking for
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has set aside the order of
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of K. Vinod Chandran and V. G. Arun, JJ., addressed the present petition filed by BSNL
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., disposed off a writ petition while allowing it which was filed seeking to issue a
Delhi High Court: Pratibha M. Singh, J., observed that: Complaints of sexual harassment are initially filed with enormous reluctance. The power of
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ has refused to review it’s verdict in B K Pavitra