Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has referred the question as to whether there would be a
“… 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… .”
The Court was hearing a case where a woman had sought compassionate appointment for her son 10 years after her husband had gone missing.
Tripura High Court: Akil Kureshi, CJ., dismissed a writ petition which was filed by the petitioner praying for regularizing her in service
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ., and Alok Kumar Verma, J., decided over a petition which was
Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J., allowed a writ petition which was filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the advertisement
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta* and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., addressed the instant appeal filed
“When the credibility of an entire examination stands vitiated by systemic irregularities, the issue then is not about seeking to identify the candidates who are tainted.”
Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan, J., while allowing the present writ application, said, “This court is having no hesitation to hold that
Gauhati High Court: Manojit Bhuyan, J., while allowing the present petition, directed to reinstate the petitioner on and from the date when
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ., while allowing the present petition in
Supreme Court: In the case relating to seniority of teachers appointed with Shri Samarth Shikshan Sansthan, the 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara
Supreme Court: A 3-Judge Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. held that the candidates left out of
Supreme Court: In a case where a company provided trained and efficient security guards to clients, claimed that security guards were the employees of the client, the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J., while allowing the present petition, held the impugned transfer order to be arbitrary and
Karnataka High Court: P.B. Bajanthri, while allowing the present writ petition against the termination of services without any disciplinary enquiry, reiterated the
Supreme Court: Stating that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide, the bench of Arun
Supreme Court: “The legitimate expectation is not a wish or a desire or a hope, therefore, it cannot be claimed or demanded
Supreme Court: In the issue relating to filling up of 4010 vacancies in the State of Uttar Pradesh, consisting of 3698 vacancies
Supreme Court: Holding that the decision taken by the Union of India not to make appointments to the Indian Police Service (IPS)