Skip to main content

3 Latest Gauhati High Court Judgments July 2018

1. Taher Hoque Laskar v. Union of India

Service LawCRPF - Transfer & PostingIn matters relating to transfer and posting, it is the administrative and the executive authorities who are to decide as to how and when the employees concerned are to be transferred and posted - there are standing instructions to regulate the transfer and posting of the CRPF personnel and officers - controversy would be best settled at the level of the organization itself unless there are certain compelling circumstances to take up and adjudicate the matter.

2. Diganta Sarma v. Chaitali Siddhanta

Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Service and Posts) Act, 2005 (Assam) - Appeal stands disposed of by directing the respondent authorities No.2 to 4 to allow the appellant to continue in his service as an Assistant Deputy Controller of Civil Defence (Junior) by adjusting his service against the available vacant post of Assistant Deputy Controller of Civil Defence (Junior) and Respondent No.1 be appointed in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid direction has been issued in the prevailing facts and circumstance of the present case and shall not be construed to be a precedent for any other matter. 

3. Pravin Kumar Jha v. Union of India

Service Law - CRPF - Transfer & Posting - Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Government Office Complex, New Delhi (respondent No.2) should consider the prayer of the petitioner in re-allocating his transfer and posting to any Jharkhand based unit of other Sector as suggested by the Inspector General of Police, North East Sector at Shillong.

Popular posts from this blog

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

When Magistrate may Dispense with Personal Attendance of Accused [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 - Ss. 205 & 317 - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - Discussed.