MCSCCE 2016
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.”- Supreme Court’s direction

Continue reading
Meghalaya High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rule 10(2) of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 provides that “any person subject to the Act, who contracts or enters into a second marriage during the lifetime of his first spouse, shall render himself ineligible for retention in service and may be dismissed, removed or retired from service on ground of unsuitability.”

Continue reading
Orissa High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“While the guideline aims to protect judicial officers from unwarranted harassment, it does not eliminate the possibility of addressing genuine issues faced by individuals or communities due to the actions of a judicial officer. The High Court retains the responsibility to ascertain the authenticity of the complaints and take appropriate action based on verified facts.”

Continue reading
detention orders under COFEPOSA
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The question of law which revolved around right of making representation being seriously jeopardized as detenus were supplied with various documents as parts of relied upon documents (‘RUDs’) which are illegible, incomplete and not readable violating Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 3 (3) of COFEPOSA Act, was kept open.

Continue reading
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

If the Government servant has been terminated without adhering to Article 311 of the Constitution, then in such a case the provisions cannot be interpreted in favour of the State to deprive the employee of his legitimate claim.

Continue reading
cause of delay condonation of delay plea supreme court
Case BriefsSupreme Court

If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach”.

Continue reading