Back
K. T. THOMAS, M. M. PUNCHHI, S. RAJENDRA BABU
Sushma Suri: Reeta Dutta: Jit Ram Kasana: Guru Adhin: Deepak Kumar Agrawal: Mahesh Chander Verma. : Ranbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Government National Capital Territory Of Delhi: Registrar, High Court Of Delhi: Government National Capital Territory Of Delhi: State Of U. P. : Registrar, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad: Registrar, High Court Of Delhi: Registrar, High Court Of Ra – Respondent
Judgment
Rajendra Babu, J.-Civil Appeal No. 3021 of 1997
Appellant responded to an advertisement issued by the High Court of Delhi inviting applications from candidates who have practiced as advocate for recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service claiming that she had put in experience for not less then seven years as an advocates at the time of filing the application. In 1982 Mrs. Sushma Suri passed the examination of Advocate on Record conducted by Supreme Court of India and in 1986 she was appointed as Assistant Government Advocate. Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Additional Government Advocate in the Supreme Court of India. When she was not called for interview, she filed a petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court relying on a Division Bench decision of the same court in Oma Shanker Sharma v. Delhi Administration & Anr.1, as affirmed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 3088/ 88 held that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for appointment. Hence this appeal.
2. The High Court in Oma Shanker Sharma’s case held that there are two sources of recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service namely, (i) officers in Delhi J
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
