Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Kerala High Court: Murali Purushothaman, J., held that there is a Constitutional as well a statutory obligation on the part of the
Supreme Court: Addressing a case of dismissal of a Bank clerk for breaching the trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as
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: Deepak Roshan, J., partly allowed the challenge against the order of the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner had been
Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna,
Supreme Court: Finding the Bombay High Court’s judgment directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of Water and
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Sujoy Paul and Arun Kumar Sharma, JJ., held that the Demonstrators and Tutors
Supreme Court: While addressing the issue as to whether a candidate is entitled to claim appointment on a subsequent post in his
“What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M. R. Shah*, JJ., held that equation of posts and salary
Supreme Court: The bench of R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy*, JJ has held that if a regular promotion is offered but
Jharkhand High Court: Shree Chandrashekhar, J. held that a charged employee has no unfettered right to ask for any document on which
“Discrimination, which is not based on any reasonable classification, is violative of all canons of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
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
“When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted.”
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias C.P, JJ., directed the government of Kerala to consider
“To allot the plots to those employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation would tantamount to giving a premium to their illegality and remaining in occupation and possession of the quarters illegally and unauthorizedly.”
In 2011, the bench of RV Raveendran and Markandey Katju, JJ laid down principles relating to promotion and upgradation.
“The State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies.”
“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.”