Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Amrit Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
CIVIL APPEALS NO(S). 13950-13951 OF 2024
1. The present appeals by special leave, are preferred by the appellant1[Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-employee”.], assailing the following two judgments rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi2[Hereinafter referred to as “High Court”.]: -
ii) Judgment dated 24th November, 2022 in batch of Letter Patent Appeals4[LPA Nos. 305 of 2022, 197 of 2022, 185 of 2022, 186 of
(1) When appointment of candidates is a nullity in law making them disentitled to hold posts, principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when same would be noth....
Irregular daily wager appointments without advertisement violate Articles 14 & 16; no regularization or reinstatement even with prior equal pay directions; termination upheld as backdoor entries depr....
The judgment emphasizes the statutory requirement for rules to have binding effect and the need for publication in the official gazette. It also highlights the limited scope for interference under Ar....
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
The court ruled that an FIR may be quashed if allegations do not disclose an offence, emphasizing prior judicial validation of the recruitment process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
