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

DELHI HIGH COURT
SUNIL GAUR
Sukanta Roy Chowdhury – Appellant
Versus
Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. Quashing of Advertisement of January, 2018 (Annexure P-8) vide which applications have been invited for the post of `Appointed Actuary' on contract basis is sought by petitioner on the ground that despite being fully eligible in-house candidate, he has not been considered for the said appointment. A mandamus is sought to respondents to consider petitioner's name for the post of `Appointed Actuary' on permanent basis in reference to Advertisement of January, 2018.

2. It is matter of record that respondent had earlier issued Advertisement of 10th June, 2017 for appointment on the post of `Appointed Actuary' and though petitioner had applied for the said post but he was not considered and vide order of 8th December, 2017 (Annexure P-5) the respondent was directed to state in detail as to how petitioner is not qualified or ineligible for being considered for the post of `Appointed Actuary' and fate of the said Representation was to be made known to petitioner. Petitioner's counsel submits that a fresh Representation (Annexure P-6) was made to respondent on 15th December, 2017 and it has been rejected vide impugned Reply of 4th January, 2018 (Annexure P-7) wherein it is

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