Paramjit Jena

< Previous Part The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss [...]

< Previous Part  Therefore, payment of consideration by barter of goods could not be finalised as contemplated in amended clause (6) of the export contract and in lieu of the same, the Kazak Corporation agreed to pay in US $ and in fact did make part payment of the same in US $, but [...]

< Previous Part Provided further that a candidate who on the basis of the results of the previous Civil Services Examination, had been allocated to the I.P.S. or Central Services, Group 'A' but who expressed his intention to appear in the next Civil Services Main Examination for [...]

< Previous Part (1) Whether the second proviso to Rule 4 of the CSE Rules 1986 is invalid for the reason that it puts an embargo restricting the candi dates who are seeking to improve their posi tion vis-a 62 vis their career in Government service? (2) Whether the second proviso under chal [...]

< Previous Part 4.1 Differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Article 14 and it denies equal protection only when there is no rational or reasonable basis for the differentiation. Thus Article 14 condemns discrimination and forbids class legislation but permits [...]

< Previous Part 5506-5525 of 1990 (as appears from the written submission made by Mr. C.N. Sreekumar) is that on a correct interpretation of the impugned second proviso, the last clause of which reads such candidate who accepts the service shall not be eligible to appear again in the Civil [...]