Judgments - Appointment
RAHUL & Ors. V/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Manish Kumar Singh And Ors. 19 Others V/s State Of U.P. And 6 Others, - 31134
AVTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
PRAGATI MAHILA SAMAJ & ANR. Vs. ARUN S/O LAXMAN ZURMURE & ORS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Vs. ANITA & ANR ETC.
V. VENKATA PRASAD & ORS. Vs. HIGH COURT OF A.P. & ORS.
KULWINDER PAL SINGH ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Vs. BRIJESHWAR SINGH CHAHAL & ANR.
The question precisely is whether appointment of law officers by the State Governments can be questioned or the process by which such appointments are made, can be assailed on the ground that the same are arbitrary, hence, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 38. To sum up, the following propositions are legally Full Judgment
Ramsingh Kanwar V/s State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors,
RICHA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS.
STATE OF U.P.& ORS Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
Dr. Nutan Thakur V/s State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home Govt.Of U.P.Lko.& Ors.
PRAMOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA
STATE OF UP AND ORS Vs. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR
What then should be the position in regard to the effect of the law pronounced by a Division Bench in relation to a case raising the same point subsequently before a Division Bench of a smaller number of Judges? There is no constitutional or statutory prescription in the matter, and the point is governed entirely by the practice in India of the courts sanctified by repeated affirmation over a century of time. Full Judgment
PARVAIZ AHMAD PARRY Vs. STATE OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND ORS
In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. Full Judgment