Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... shri mahendra singh godara and shri ashok chhangani have supported the reference made with assertion that in view of the judgment in the case of state of karnataka v. uma devi (supra) no weightage could have been allowed to the aspirants having experience of working with the schemes floated under mgnrega and under the ..... to be implemented with a new vision of development and governance at the grass root level through the panchayat raj institutions as per thrust of the 73rd constitutional amendment and the state enactment -25- made in consonance thereto. the need of experience hands in service, thus, is rational and required. while adopting the ..... mentioned above is required to be made as per the rules of 1998. the government of rajasthan by rajasthan rural development and panchayati raj state and subordinate service (amendment) rules, 2013 substituted first proviso to rule 23 in following terms :- -10- provided that in case of appointment to the post of junior engineer, assistant programme .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... shri mahendra singh godara and shri ashok chhangani have supported the reference made with assertion that in view of the judgment in the case of state of karnataka v. uma devi (supra) no weightage could have been allowed to the aspirants having experience of working with the schemes floated under mgnrega and under the ..... to be implemented with a new vision of development and governance at the grass root level through the panchayat raj institutions as per thrust of the 73rd constitutional amendment and the state enactment -25- made in consonance thereto. the need of experience hands in service, thus, is rational and required. while adopting the ..... mentioned above is required to be made as per the rules of 1998. the government of rajasthan by rajasthan rural development and panchayati raj state and subordinate service (amendment) rules, 2013 substituted first proviso to rule 23 in following terms :- -10- provided that in case of appointment to the post of junior engineer, assistant programme .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
..... state government.29. i have considered the case of the petitioners in the light of directions contained in the supreme court decision in the case of secretary, state of karnataka v. uma devi reported in : (2006) 4 scc 1. in that judgment, the apex court held in para 53 that it is the duty of the ..... department, in view of 73rd amendment in the constitution of india, issued communication dated 27.06.2003 addressing all the ceos of the zila parishads of the state annexing order of the government dated ..... tenure basis under the rules promulgated under proviso to article 309 of the constitution of india.6. in the writ petition, it is mentioned that after 73rd amendment in the constitution, constitutional status was given to the panchayat samitis and eleventh schedule was appended to the constitution of india. the state government through panchayat raj .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... 52.state of gujarat vs. suryakant chunilal shah (1999) 1 scc 24.u.p. jal nigam vs. s.c. atri (1996) 10 scc 36.m.a. rajasekhar vs. state of karnataka 1994 suppl. (3) scc 42.s. ramchandra raju vs. state of orissa 1991 suppl.(2) scc 12.r.k. singh vs. state of up. 1990 (2) rlr 111(db) m ..... the assumption of the government of india by the crown, this rule of english common law contin- ued unaltered till 1919 when section 96-b was in- troduced by the amendment of government of in- dia act of that year. sub-sec.(1) of section 96-b of the government of india act 1919 reads as un- der: subject to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... the averments that certain explanatory facts could not be pleaded in the plaint by mistake, which were detected while discussing with the counsel and, therefore, application seeking amendment was being filed. by way of said application, the plaintiffs wanted to introduce para 3(a), which single paragraph ran into as many as 10 pages and ..... , the electricity connection and the equipment would be removed at their expenses. at the outset it was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the amendment application filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was wrongly rejected by the trial court, which has caused immense prejudice to the appellants. it was submitted that on ..... cross examined on the affidavits filed by them, an application under order vi, rule 17 cpc was filed by the plaintiffs, inter alia, seeking to amend averments in the plaint and take so called explanatory pleas that the suit property was purchased and construction thereon raised with the contribution of funds by way .....
Tag this Judgment!