Requirement - Judgment Search Results
Posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors Are Required to Be Filled in V ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jul-16-2013
of this order Chandigarh LPA Nos.746 & 747 of 2013 (O&M) [2].posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors are required to be filled in by promotion from amongst the Junior Scale Stenographers and Clerks working in the Headquarters
Designation of Post Qualification and Experience Required for Vs. the ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
the grade of ` 250-300/- w.e.f.4.08.1966. Consequently, the said grade was her entry scale and not selection grade. Requirement of Appendix-B mentioned above was three years service in selection grade of ` 250-300/-. Consequently service of petitioner
“since the Matter Requires a Considerable Vs. A.Venu Prasad
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Sep-09-2013
integrity of this document COCP No.2341 o”2. Ultimately the Division Bench gave the following direction:- “Since the matter requires a considerable clarification/modification of the Reservation Policy approved by the State Government, we direct the Principal Secretary to
18-section briefs on any result in this list
An Agreement to Sell Requires the Proposed Vendor Vs. the State of Har ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
In view of the principle laid down in the maxim Ex debito justitiae i.e. in accordance with the requirements of justice, the prohibition under Crl. Misc. not M-13540 of 2010 -12- section 397 (3) on revisional power
“5. the Basic Question Which Requires to Be Vs. State of Punjab and ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Punjab & otheRs.2008 (4) S.C.T594would be relevant and read in the following terms:- “5. The basic question which requires to be adjudicated upon is whether the Lokpal under the Act could entertain a complaint on behalf of
“3. the Appellant Was Required to ExplaIn Each Day of Delay. in the ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
impugned order (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under (paras 3 and 4) :-“3. The appellant was required to explain each day of delay. In the case in hand, there was delay of 21 months but
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free