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

2021 Supreme(HP) 943

SURESHWAR THAKUR
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sipahiya.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Vaidya.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since, both the afore writ petitions encapsulate similar subject matters and, also since common question of facts, and, law are involved in all the afore writ petitions, thereupon, they are amenable for a common verdict being made thereon.

2. In pursuance to advertisement notice, borne in Annexure P-1, the writ petitioners applied for the advertised post of Male Multipurpose Health Workers. The appointments to the afore advertised post, was published to be made on a contractual basis. The petitioners applied for the afore post. In contemporaneity to the issuance of the afore advertisement notice, the R&P Rules appended as Annexure R-1, were both in vogue, and, obviously held their clout. Furthermore, the minimum educational, and, other qualifications required to be possessed by the aspirants concerned, stand detailed therein, in the manner extracted hereinafter:

7. Minimum Educational and other qualification required for direct recruits

(a) Essential Qualification

(i) Should be a 10+2 or its equivalent from a recognized Board of

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