Search Results for "candidate"

452 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 452 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Company Secretary for Lack of Requisite Experience. Experience as Management Trainee or Assistant Company Secretary Cannot Be Counted as Experience 'as' Company Secretary for Eligibility.

The appellant, Ritu Bhatia, applied for the post of Company Secretary with Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited, which required five years' post...

© 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...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Recruitment Matter — Seniority and Eligibility for Inspector (Accountant) Post in Indo-Tibetan Border Police. The Court held that the appellant was eligible and senior among candidates who had passed the ISTM examination in cash and accounts subjects.

The appellant, Bir Pal, filed a civil appeal against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 12.07.2016 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494/...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Union of India's Appeal Against High Court Direction to Consider Havildars for Promotion to Naib Subedar Under Pre-2011 Rules. Creation of Intermediate Warrant Officer Post Does Not Violate Vested Rights; Promotion Must Be Considered Under Rules in Force at Time of Consideration.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the High Court of Manipur. The respondents, Havildars in Ass...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Petitions Against U.P. Jal Nigam in Workmen Reinstatement Dispute — No Willful Disobedience Found. Court Held That the Order Dated 07.09.2015 Only Required Giving Preference to Retrenched Workmen for Future Vacancies, Not Automatic Reinstatement.

The present contempt petitions arose from an order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Supreme Court disposing of a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed ...