HARDAYAL HARDY, V.S.DESHPANDE
H. L. RODHEY – Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINSTRATION – Respondent
( 2 ) PRIOR to the promulgation of the 1967 Rules the Delhi Administration did not have a unified subordinate service or services. The Administration was divided into several departments, each of which had ministerial as well as executive posts under it. The appointments to the subordinate executive posts were Joverned by two notifications. The notification dated 8th August, 1960, at page 49 of the record of C. W. No. 508/1968 (hereinafter called the 1960 Rules), regulated appointments of Inspectors of Sales Tax, Excise Inspectors and Sub-Inspect
REFERRED TO : B.S.Vedera v. Union of India
T.M.Kanniyan v. I.T.O. Pondicherry
State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh
Mervyn Continho v. Collector of Customs, Bombay
Govind Dattatray v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Roshanlal Tandon v. Union of India
G. S. Ramaswamy v. Inspector General of Police, Mysore
K. Ananda Nambiyar v. Chief Secy. Govt. of Madras
Moti Ram v. General Manager N. E. F. Rly
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Maula Bux
Sukhbans Singh V. State of Punjab
State of Punjab V. S. S. Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.