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

2011 Supreme(Jhk) 972

PRAKASH TATIA, JAYA ROY
Kamal Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
Vinod Kanth. Sr. Adv. and Krishna Murari. for the appellants.
A.G.. for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants-writ petitioners are aggrieved against the judgment dated 25th July. 2011 by which" the writ petitions of the writ petitioners were dismissed.

3. The facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are required to be narrated in brief only because there is in fact no dispute with respect to the factual aspect.

4. The petitioners alongwith others were initially appointed on the post of "Junior Engineers in the Rural Development Department in the erstwhile State of Bihar. about 30 years ago from now i.e. they were appointed in the year 1981. The petitioners were dilly qualified for the post. However after taking their services for six years as Junior Engineers the State Government on 27th June 1987, passed another order and appointed these persons on the posts of Assistant Engineers temporarily for a period of six months and it is mentioned in the order dated 27th June. 1987 itself that the said appointments are in anticipation to the recommendation which may come from the State Public Service Commission. However so far as appointment on the post of Junior Engineers was concerned that app































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