Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court said that the seniority list was correctly published by interspacing those direct recruits who were eligible in the recruitment year 2009-10 and were appointed against the vacancies of the said year with 53 promotees who were promoted. However, it recommended a reference to a 5-judge bench for reconsideration.
In an elaborate legal analysis, along with scathing observations, the J&K and Ladakh HC stated that JKSSB's actions in favouring one blacklisted agency to conduct recruitment exams, have doomed the future of many aspirants and put a question mark over its own efficacy.
Madras High Court: In a case filed by the petitioner- candidate seeking the reason for his non-selection as well as
“The disclosure of the marks in the main examination before it is finalised and the viva-voce is conducted, would be against the principles of transparency, rather it will invite criticism of bias or favouritism.”
Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed the writ petition which was filed praying to issue a mandamus commanding
Supreme Court: In the case where a candidate appearing for examination for recruitment to the post of Constables in Railway Protection Force
Madras High Court: S. M Subramaniam, J. upheld the government order that stated, the Degree of B.Sc (Biochemistry) awarded by
Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member
On 24th June, 2022, Central Government notified Indian Police Service (Fixation of cadre Strength) Fifth Amendment Regulations, 2022 and Indian Police Service
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J. allowed a petition which was filed praying for a direction to quash and set aside the
Kerala High Court: In a significant relief to non-NLU law graduates seeking job opportunities in PSUs, V.G. Arun, J., declared that NTPC’s
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ., reversed the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court and held that
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that as per Rule 16 of the Andhra Pradesh
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, CJ. and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. allowed a petition which was filed
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav J. while deciding on a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution pertaining to prayer of the
Meghalaya High Court: Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. while deciding in the matter between groups of persons in the Meghalaya Civil Service and the
Supreme Court: While adjudicating the issue as to whether promotion scheme implemented by office memorandum supersedes recruitment regulations, the Division Bench of
Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a significant case wherein, a transgender had approached the Court seeking benefit of reservation for appointment in
Jharkhand High Court: S.N. Pathak, J., rejected the petition filed by a civil services candidate, who was declared unsuccessful in prelims examination
Kerala High Court: V.G.Arun, J., held that the practice of confining selection process to CLAT PG-2021 candidates only for the post of