Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
10 judgments · newest first · showing 1–10
The appellant, a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS), challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 and the High Court's Full Court resolutions that introduced a five‑year "very good" (A) Annual Confidential Report (ACR) grading …
Dr. P.S. Malik, an Additional District Judge, was accused of sexual harassment by a junior judicial assistant. The Delhi High Court's Full Court suspended him and constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013, which submitted a preliminary report …
Former High Court judges appointed directly from the Bar filed writ petitions alleging that the pension provisions under the High Court Judges (Salaries & Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 discriminate against them compared to judges promoted from the judicial service. They sought that ten years of …
The Supreme Court considered three appeals challenging the compulsory retirement of two Delhi Higher Judicial Service officers and one Delhi Judicial Service officer. The appellants argued that their cases could not be reconsidered before reaching the age of 55 after an earlier screening at age 50, …
The Delhi High Court advertised 20 District Judge vacancies, reserving three for Scheduled Castes. Two SC candidates, Ramesh Kumar and Desh Raj Chalia, cleared the written test but were deemed unsuitable because they failed to obtain the prescribed minimum marks in the interview. They filed writ …
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against a Delhi High Court order that directed the insertion of Rule 26(B) in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, granting a weightage of up to fifteen years of Bar practice for computing pension and other retiral benefits of direct recruits. The …
The petitioners, directly recruited Additional District and Sessions Judges, challenged the Delhi High Court's seniority list for Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) officers that was based on the 3 July 1986 Office Memorandum (OM). They argued that seniority should be determined under Rule 8(2) …
The case concerned the inter‑se seniority of officers in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service appointed either by direct recruitment from the Bar or by promotion from the Delhi Judicial Service. The Delhi High Court had prepared seniority lists that excluded promotees appointed under Rules 16 and 17 on …
Sushma Suri, an Additional Government Advocate with more than seven years of experience, applied for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) but was not called for interview. She challenged the decision, arguing that a Government Advocate remains an "advocate" under Article 233(2) of the …
The petitioner, a practising advocate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, applied for an Additional District & Sessions Judge vacancy in 1985, which was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate. No suitable ST candidate was available, and the vacancy remained unfilled while three Scheduled Caste …
