Skip to content

Primary Menu

Home
Gallery
Contact Us

Search for:

Home
Uncategorized
Mhc republic day live see here

Uncategorized

Mhc republic day live see here

By Sekar Reporter 1 month ago

Continue Reading

Previous Petition filed in SC seeking time to conduct mop up counselling for medical admissions, Govt tells HC

Next https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1353975279589310464?s=08 [1/26, 13:28] Sekarreporter1: [1/26, 13:26] Sekarreporter1: [1/26, 12:01] Chandrasekar Mhc Advt: *CHANDRU LAW ACADEMY*

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Search for:

Recent Posts

Defamatory complaints against spouse and damaging his reputation amount to mental cruelty, the Supreme Court said on Friday while granting divorce to an Army officer. A Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said
Wearing specs will not make one unfit for post, says HC Kaushik Kannan | TNN | Mar 1, 2021, 04:08 IST +1 AA Madurai: Madras high court has observed that a person wearing spectacles cannot be deemed unfit for a post when there is no specific visual standards mentioned in the recruitment notification. Dismissing an appeal by the state, the court upheld a single judge’s order directing to appoint a candidate for the post of sub-inspector of police (fingerprint). REMOVE ADS S Durga Devi had cleared the written examination for the post followed by physical measurement endurance test and viva voce. Though she was selected provisionally, she was found unsuitable for the post at the examination done by the medical board consisting of an eye specialist. The test was done in tune with the GO passed by the home department in 2000 fixing the visual standards for testing a candidate without wearing glasses. After making her undergo the test thrice, her candidature was rejected. Durga challenged it before the HC Madurai bench and the single judge held that the notification does not specify the visual standards and that it is not as if the work cannot be done by wearing glasses. The state challenged the order through the present appeal. Agreeing with the single judge, a division bench of Justices M M Sundresh and S Ananthi observed that it is clear that Durga can perform the work by wearing glasses and her candidature cannot be rejected by making her undergo a test without wearing glasses. The judges observed that the classification sought to be made is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is an indirect way of fixing qualification on the sole premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot be considered.
2/28, 22:04] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 01.03.2021 – K. Selvaraj, MHC Ad: *”Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments”* There are two avenues of Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments (Art. 368); namely: *Procedural* and *Substantiative*.
2/28, 23:28] Sivaji: 27-2-21 mahaveer shivaji MHC advocate: PART II CITIZENSHIP CONTINUES: 5 method: (1) CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH: a person born in India prior to commencement of constitution and aordinarily resided for the period of five years shall be the citizen of India by birth. (2) CITIZENSHI
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WVTT8EuTQ4YZk7SeEy6Om1GkT7YlwoKS61PTtyec9ME/edit?usp=drivesdk

Recent Posts

Defamatory complaints against spouse and damaging his reputation amount to mental cruelty, the Supreme Court said on Friday while granting divorce to an Army officer. A Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul said
Wearing specs will not make one unfit for post, says HC Kaushik Kannan | TNN | Mar 1, 2021, 04:08 IST +1 AA Madurai: Madras high court has observed that a person wearing spectacles cannot be deemed unfit for a post when there is no specific visual standards mentioned in the recruitment notification. Dismissing an appeal by the state, the court upheld a single judge’s order directing to appoint a candidate for the post of sub-inspector of police (fingerprint). REMOVE ADS S Durga Devi had cleared the written examination for the post followed by physical measurement endurance test and viva voce. Though she was selected provisionally, she was found unsuitable for the post at the examination done by the medical board consisting of an eye specialist. The test was done in tune with the GO passed by the home department in 2000 fixing the visual standards for testing a candidate without wearing glasses. After making her undergo the test thrice, her candidature was rejected. Durga challenged it before the HC Madurai bench and the single judge held that the notification does not specify the visual standards and that it is not as if the work cannot be done by wearing glasses. The state challenged the order through the present appeal. Agreeing with the single judge, a division bench of Justices M M Sundresh and S Ananthi observed that it is clear that Durga can perform the work by wearing glasses and her candidature cannot be rejected by making her undergo a test without wearing glasses. The judges observed that the classification sought to be made is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is an indirect way of fixing qualification on the sole premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot be considered.
2/28, 22:04] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: 01.03.2021 – K. Selvaraj, MHC Ad: *”Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments”* There are two avenues of Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments (Art. 368); namely: *Procedural* and *Substantiative*.
2/28, 23:28] Sivaji: 27-2-21 mahaveer shivaji MHC advocate: PART II CITIZENSHIP CONTINUES: 5 method: (1) CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH: a person born in India prior to commencement of constitution and aordinarily resided for the period of five years shall be the citizen of India by birth. (2) CITIZENSHI
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WVTT8EuTQ4YZk7SeEy6Om1GkT7YlwoKS61PTtyec9ME/edit?usp=drivesdk

Copyright © All rights reserved. | Magazine 7 by AF themes.

CALL ME