Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
28 judgments · newest first · showing 1–28
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a massive group of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) results for the 2018 and 2019 exams and the permanent debarment of around 7,880 candidates. The Court found that the marks of these candidates had …
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) heard a massive group of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of the 2018 and 2019 Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) results of about 7,880 candidates and their permanent debarment from future TET examinations. The State of Maharashtra and the …
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) heard a massive group of writ petitions filed by teachers and aspirants whose TET‑2018 and TET‑2019 results were cancelled after the Maharashtra State Examination Council discovered large‑scale mark‑sheet tampering. The petitioners argued that the …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a massive group of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) results for the 2018 and 2019 examinations and the permanent debarment of around 7,880 candidates for alleged mark‑sheet tampering. The Court …
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dealt with a massive group of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) results for the 2018 and 2019 examinations and the permanent debarment of about 7,880 candidates for alleged mark‑sheet tampering. The court …
The High Court examined a group of writ petitions filed by teachers and aspirants whose TET 2018 and 2019 results were cancelled after the Maharashtra State Examination Council discovered large‑scale mark‑sheet tampering affecting about 7,880 candidates. The petitioners argued that the cancellation …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, upheld the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra State Council of Examination's decision to cancel the TET 2018 and 2019 results of the petitioners, finding sufficient evidence of mark‑sheet tampering. It set aside the order permanently debaring the …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners, who were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules of 2006 and 2008, were later appointed by District Appellate Authorities after vacancies arose post‑2012, but were denied salaries. The State Appellate Authority set aside those …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The appellants, who were selected as Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers under the 2006‑2008 recruitment rules, were later appointed by the District Appellate Authority after vacancies arose post‑2012, but were denied salaries. The State Appellate Authority set aside those appointments and ordered …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The petitioners were candidates for Panchayat/Prakhand Teacher posts under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules (2006, 2008) who, after being placed on merit lists, were not appointed initially but later obtained appointments through District Appellate Authorities in 2016‑17. They were …
The Supreme Court examined appeals filed by the victims of an interstate child‑trafficking racket challenging the High Court's grant of bail to thirteen accused persons charged under IPC sections 363, 311 and 370(5). The Court found that the High Court had ignored crucial factors such as the …
The private unaided minority school St. Mary's Education Society terminated the services of its non‑teaching employee, Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, after a disciplinary enquiry. Bhargava filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the termination and the …
The Supreme Court heard a public‑interest writ petition alleging systematic sexual abuse of children in orphanages in Tamil Nadu and the broader failure of the State to protect children in need of care and protection. The Court examined the scope of the term "child in need of care and protection" …
