Recruiter - Judgment Search Results

The Direct Recruit Class-ii Engineering Officers' Association and othe ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1990SC1607; (1990)92BOMLR360; [1990(60)FLR918]; JT1990(2)SC264; 1990(2)KarLJ73; 1990(1)SCALE839; (1990)2SCC715; [1990]2SCR900; 1990(2)SLJ40(SC); 1990(2)LC314(SC); (1990)

promotion to the substantive vacancies. In 1960, detailed rules for recruitment to Class I and Class II Services were framed by

Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board Vs. S. Ruban Peter and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1991)IILLJ92Mad

letter dated 15th April, 1989 written by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and a

Ex Recruit Manoj Deswal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT791

letter No. A/ 20314/MT-3 dated 28.2.1986 according to which a recruit would not be allowed to rejoin his training in the

Rajya Sabha Recruitment Cell & Anr vs.jitender Yadav & Ors.

Court: Delhi

MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA SANJIV KHANNA, J.1. The Rajya Sabha Recruitment Cell and the Rajya Sabha Secretariat have filed the present

Y, Ex. Recruit Anu Sankar Vs. Union of India, Represented by Its Secre ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi

by the Recruiting Medical Officer at the time of the recruitment and if found fit, his case for re-enrolment could be

SachIn Panwar, Recruit Constable Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

application, would reveal that the applicant is a candidate for recruitment as Constable (Executive) with the respondents, in response to a

Ex Recruit Shish Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT89; 2006(89)DRJ192; 2007(1)SLJ418(Delhi)

The contention of the respondents that at the time of recruitment only routine examination is done, is not acceptable at all

Ex. Recruit Dharuv Prakash Vs. Uoi and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

2(A) which was the medical exam at the time of recruitment in which his eye sight was 6/6 and he was

Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras Vs. V. Ramalingam and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1999SC2861; (1998)8SCC523

the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras. It pertains to the recruitments made, inter alia, to the post of Cooperative Officers in

Ravinder Kumar, Recruit Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

liable to be set aside and quashed. In the present recruitment Shri Braham Prakash, Roll No. 400076, was also involved in