Search Results for "public employment"

77 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 77 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Quashing of Government Resolution on Seniority for SC/ST Promotions in Orissa Administrative Service. Catch-Up Rule Prevails Absent State Legislation Under Article 16(4A) After 85th Amendment.

The case involves a dispute over seniority between general category officers and SC/ST officers in the Orissa Administrative Service. The respondent-w...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of PTI Selection by Haryana Staff Selection Commission Due to Arbitrary Change in Criteria. The selection process violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the Commission altered the marking scheme after interviews without any rational basis.

The case pertains to a batch of appeals arising from a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which quashed the selection of Physical T...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Clarifies Prospective Overruling in Bonus Marks Case for Teacher Appointments in Rajasthan. The Court held that only writ petitioners who moved the High Court before November 18, 1999, are entitled to relief, and appointments made before that date are saved.

The Supreme Court of India heard two civil appeals arising from conflicting decisions of the Rajasthan High Court regarding the interpretation of the ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Seniority Dispute Over Catch-Up Rule for Reserved Category Promotions. Consequential Seniority for Scheduled Caste Promotee Upheld as Regular Promotion Not Fortuitous.

The case involves a seniority dispute between two officers of the Government of Maharashtra: Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure (appellant, open category) and ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Age Limit and Recruitment Interval Rules for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. Rules 8(1) and 12 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 Held Valid as Not Manifestly Arbitrary Under Articles 14 and 16.

The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The petitioner...