Search Results for "cadre and recruitment rules"

636 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 636 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Selection Process for Assistant Engineer Post in Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Substitution of Skill Test with Interview Violated Advertised Procedure, Court Quashes Selection and Orders Fresh Process.

The petitioner, Rahul Annasaheb Shende, a Civil Engineer with B.Tech qualification, was initially appointed as an Engineer on a contractual basis by T...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeals of Direct Recruit Deputy Collectors and State of Uttarakhand in Seniority Dispute. Promotee Deputy Collectors Cannot Claim Seniority from Ad Hoc Appointment Date as Appointments Were Not in Accordance with Rules Under Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005.

The Supreme Court heard a batch of civil appeals arising from a seniority dispute between direct recruit and promotee Deputy Collectors in the State o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Junior Clerk's Petition to Condoned Break in Service and Protect Pay. Service Interruption Due to Non-Joining After Transfer Condoned as Technical Break, Not Voluntary Abandonment.

The petitioner, Sanchareshwar Madhavrao Kadam, a Junior Clerk on the establishment of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, filed a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition of Government Engineer Seeking Antedated Promotion. Petitioner's claim for regular promotion from 2004 rejected as ad-hoc promotion in 2005 did not confer right to retrospective regularisation.

The petitioner, Shri S. Lekshmanan, was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 04.06.1979 and promoted to Assistant Engineer on 15.07.1996. He c...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Promotion Rule of Forest Development Corporation Requiring Departmental Exam, Dismisses RFO's Petition. Rule 3(1) Providing Different Deadlines for Existing and Future Officers Held Non-Discriminatory as Multiple Opportunities Given and Seniority Not Sole Basis.

The dispute arose when a Range Forest Officer employed with the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (F.D.C.M.) challenged his supersess...