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

2005 Supreme(All) 1200

VINEET SARAN
MOHD EHTESHAMUL HASAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates:
D.S.Shukla, Jai Prakesh Rai, K.C.Sinha, V.K.SINGH,

VINEET SARAN, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Sri D. S. Shukla, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India appearing for respondent No. 5.

2. The facts in brief are that in response to an advertisement issued on 2-3-2005 by respondent No. 4, the District Tuberculosis Officer as Member Secretary of the District Tuberculosis Control Society, Allahabad inviting applications for filling up the post of Tuberculosis Health Visitor (T. B. H. V.) the petitioner had applied. The qualification as mentioned in the said advertisement was that the candidate should have passed Intermediate with Science. It is not the case of the petitioner that in response to the said application filed by the petitioner he had been called for interview or any other action has been taken with regard to his selection. However, a fresh advertisement was issued on 14-6-2005 again inviting applications for the post of T. B. H. V. in the subsequent advertisement the essential qualification for appointment on the post of T. B. H. V. was I










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