SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Del) 115

HARDAYAL HARDY, V.S.DESHPANDE
H. L. RODHEY – Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINSTRATION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.B.SAHARIA, B.P.Mauriya, FRANK ANTHONY, Prakash Narain

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition along With the connected Writ Petitions, 530/68 (Darshan Kumar Puri v. Delhi Administration) and 508/1968 (M. Prasad v. Delhi Administration) has been filed by certain Ministerial employees of the Delhi Administration, against the constitution of the two separate Central Civil Services, to be known as the Subordinate Ministerial Service and the Subordinate Executive Service of the Delhi Administration by the Promulgation and enforcement of the Delhi Administration Subordinate Ministerial/executive Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the 1967 Rules), from the 10th February, 1967. The facts are briefly as follows:

( 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























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top