Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... opinion given by the finance department. in this connection, it is worthwhile to observe that earlier vide communication dated 07.07.2011 the finance department advised the university to act as per guidelines contained in the revised ugc regulations 2010, in which, there is no separate eligibility prescribed or eligibility is granted only to direct recruitees. ..... court dated 18-7-2008, in lpa no.844 of 2007, affirming the judgment of the learned single judge dated 31-7-2007, in cwjc no.447 of 2006. the special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as to costs. in this case, it is not in dispute that associate professors who were ..... % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 ( 22.09.2010 0:- , 0. : / : / (;)/11/1318, 18.10.2011 ! , 0. 1. ; % % ! 1. 2 2 % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 22. 09.2010 % 1 % b % , % :1-32/2006-- : ii/. : (i), 31.12.2008 % 2 (xiii) ; % % ! ( % 2 ! % ! ( % 27.10.2009 % 1. 2 g 2 ( % % ; , !2 1. ; b g 0 % (( l % ! ! % ! ; ( 0 % % ! % % ! % % ( n ( % 27.10.2009 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... opinion given by the finance department. in this connection, it is worthwhile to observe that earlier vide communication dated 07.07.2011 the finance department advised the university to act as per guidelines contained in the revised ugc regulations 2010, in which, there is no separate eligibility prescribed or eligibility is granted only to direct recruitees. ..... court dated 18-7-2008, in lpa no.844 of 2007, affirming the judgment of the learned single judge dated 31-7-2007, in cwjc no.447 of 2006. the special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as to costs. in this case, it is not in dispute that associate professors who were ..... % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 ( 22.09.2010 0:- , 0. : / : / (;)/11/1318, 18.10.2011 ! , 0. 1. ; % % ! 1. 2 2 % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 22. 09.2010 % 1 % b % , % :1-32/2006-- : ii/. : (i), 31.12.2008 % 2 (xiii) ; % % ! ( % 2 ! % ! ( % 27.10.2009 % 1. 2 g 2 ( % % ; , !2 1. ; b g 0 % (( l % ! ! % ! ; ( 0 % % ! % % ! % % ( n ( % 27.10.2009 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... opinion given by the finance department. in this connection, it is worthwhile to observe that earlier vide communication dated 07.07.2011 the finance department advised the university to act as per guidelines contained in the revised ugc regulations 2010, in which, there is no separate eligibility prescribed or eligibility is granted only to direct recruitees. ..... court dated 18-7-2008, in lpa no.844 of 2007, affirming the judgment of the learned single judge dated 31-7-2007, in cwjc no.447 of 2006. the special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as to costs. in this case, it is not in dispute that associate professors who were ..... % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 ( 22.09.2010 0:- , 0. : / : / (;)/11/1318, 18.10.2011 ! , 0. 1. ; % % ! 1. 2 2 % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 22. 09.2010 % 1 % b % , % :1-32/2006-- : ii/. : (i), 31.12.2008 % 2 (xiii) ; % % ! ( % 2 ! % ! ( % 27.10.2009 % 1. 2 g 2 ( % % ; , !2 1. ; b g 0 % (( l % ! ! % ! ; ( 0 % % ! % % ! % % ( n ( % 27.10.2009 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... opinion given by the finance department. in this connection, it is worthwhile to observe that earlier vide communication dated 07.07.2011 the finance department advised the university to act as per guidelines contained in the revised ugc regulations 2010, in which, there is no separate eligibility prescribed or eligibility is granted only to direct recruitees. ..... court dated 18-7-2008, in lpa no.844 of 2007, affirming the judgment of the learned single judge dated 31-7-2007, in cwjc no.447 of 2006. the special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as to costs. in this case, it is not in dispute that associate professors who were ..... % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 ( 22.09.2010 0:- , 0. : / : / (;)/11/1318, 18.10.2011 ! , 0. 1. ; % % ! 1. 2 2 % % ! ( ( % 27.10.2009 ! % 2010 22. 09.2010 % 1 % b % , % :1-32/2006-- : ii/. : (i), 31.12.2008 % 2 (xiii) ; % % ! ( % 2 ! % ! ( % 27.10.2009 % 1. 2 g 2 ( % % ; , !2 1. ; b g 0 % (( l % ! ! % ! ; ( 0 % % ! % % ! % % ( n ( % 27.10.2009 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... provision cannot be examined; (3) learned single judge misconstrued the judgment of hon'ble supreme court in secretary, state of karnataka vs. uma devi, reported in (2006)4 scc 1. the case aforesaid is having no application to the facts of the present case. beside that even in the case of uma devi it is ..... services including panchayat raj service and observed as under:- the panchayati raj institutions as per schedule-xi of the constitution of india read with rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 and the rules framed -24- thereunder are having a very significant role in nation building by extending and implementing various developmental plans. several schemes under ..... requirement for public -35- employment is respected, there cannot be much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is ordinarily not proper for courts whether acting under article 226 of the constitution or under article 32 of the constitution, to direct absorption in permanent employment of those who have been engaged without .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... 000 sq. mtrs to them and on account of non-development of infrastructure of the college, not only the respondent no.4 has lost its affiliation from the concerned university of rajasthan but even the bank, which has financed its project, has threatened for coercive measures for recovery and the lease deed in favour of the respondent no. ..... of lands.25. what is to be examined by this court is as to what will be the effect of s.4 of rajasthan lands (restrictions on transfer) act, 1976 (act, 1976) which has been enacted to impose restrictions on transfer of lands proposed to be acquired or under acquisition for public purposes.26. provisions under the scheme (supra ..... dt. 31/10/1998, is wholly without merit for the reason that application was filed much after the subject land was withdrawn from acquisition vide notification dt.01/12/2006 and that was maintainable under the law and will not affect the rights & title of the land holders in whose favour it sbcwp no.7734/2010 ram narain dhabhai .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... 000 sq. mtrs to them and on account of non-development of infrastructure of the college, not only the respondent no.4 has lost its affiliation from the concerned university of rajasthan but even the bank, which has financed its project, has threatened for coercive measures for recovery and the lease deed in favour of the respondent no. ..... of lands.25. what is to be examined by this court is as to what will be the effect of s.4 of rajasthan lands (restrictions on transfer) act, 1976 (act, 1976) which has been enacted to impose restrictions on transfer of lands proposed to be acquired or under acquisition for public purposes.26. provisions under the scheme (supra ..... dt. 31/10/1998, is wholly without merit for the reason that application was filed much after the subject land was withdrawn from acquisition vide notification dt.01/12/2006 and that was maintainable under the law and will not affect the rights & title of the land holders in whose favour it sbcwp no.7734/2010 ram narain dhabhai .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... 000 sq. mtrs to them and on account of non-development of infrastructure of the college, not only the respondent no.4 has lost its affiliation from the concerned university of rajasthan but even the bank, which has financed its project, has threatened for coercive measures for recovery and the lease deed in favour of the respondent no. ..... of lands.25. what is to be examined by this court is as to what will be the effect of s.4 of rajasthan lands (restrictions on transfer) act, 1976 (act, 1976) which has been enacted to impose restrictions on transfer of lands proposed to be acquired or under acquisition for public purposes.26. provisions under the scheme (supra ..... dt. 31/10/1998, is wholly without merit for the reason that application was filed much after the subject land was withdrawn from acquisition vide notification dt.01/12/2006 and that was maintainable under the law and will not affect the rights & title of the land holders in whose favour it sbcwp no.7734/2010 ram narain dhabhai .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... , especially of the commercial taxes department, should be directed to be regularized since the decisions in dharwad (supra), piara singh (supra), jacob, and gujarat agricultural university and the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also be regularized. the doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the ..... its jurisdiction and power. 14 while inviting attention towards the fact that in the case of secretary, state of karnataka vs. uma devi, reported in (2006) 4 scc 1.it is further submitted that the hon'ble supreme court permitted the state government to run schemes and projects for imparting education because education ..... thereby, the central government while performing its sovereign duty and to maintain educational standard for the children enacted the right of children to free & compulsory education act, 2009 and state government recruited teachers while amending the service rules on the posts of teacher grade-iii (level-i and level-ii). 19 it is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... /2009 shree cement ltd. v/s state of rajasthan dtd. 11.10.201147/105were withdrawn on 28.4.06, primarily because of the promulgation of the rajasthan value added tax act, 2006, the new tax regime now been legislated across the country in a bid to have a common national taxation system. the consensus arrived at for the rate of tax for ..... subsidy was reduced from 75% to 50% as there was reduction in rate of sales tax/vat from 19% to 12.5% w.e.f. 1.4.2006 with the introduction of vat act in the state of rajasthan in harmony with uniform national rate on sale of cement, is misconceived and not tenable thebecause with the reduction in rate of tax ..... .b. civil writ petition no.4790/2009 shree cement ltd. v/s state of rajasthan dtd. 11.10.201111/1051994/vat and cst act, 1956.11.consequent to the aforesaid decision dtd.29.07.2006 of said slsc, an entitlement certificate was also issued to the petitioner vide annex.17 by commissioner of industries and member secretary of slsc on 8.9 .....
Tag this Judgment!