Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Ch. Papanna vs The Personnel Manager, State Bank Of ... on 27 September, 1995

R. Venugopal vs State Bank Of India, Rep. By Its Chief ... on 20 February, 2003

13. Though in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Papanna's case (7 supra) holding that rejection of the candidature on the ground of over-qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and certainly a disqualification, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Y. Srinivasa Rao's case (2 supra) and also in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in P.S. Bhagavan's case (4 supra) and the subsequent Division Bench judgment in District Collector, Ananthapur's case (5 supra), the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Sudalaimuthu vs Union Bank Of India on 22 December, 2016

(iii) a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ch.Papanna vs. The Personnel Manager, State Bank of India, Hyderabad and others, (1996) 5 SLR 772 (DB) 17. Thus, it is manifest from the above decisions that where over qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointment and if the candidature is rejected on the ground of possessing over-qualification, the same amounts to arbitrariness and therefore, illegal discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 16. Where the Management or the employer prescribes minimum qualification as a requirement and in addition to that it prescribes that over-qualification is a bar, in such a case, the rejection of the candidature on the ground of over-qualification cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because the Management or the employer has got every right to prescribe qualifications keeping its peculiar needs in view.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Neethu U.R vs State Bank Of Travancore on 1 August, 2006

9. It is pointed out that the Director of Technical Education, State of Kerala, vide letter dated 11.3.2014 [Ext.R1(a)], had clarified that 'Class 12' could not be considered to be equivalent W.P.C.Nos.8335, 8429, 11243, 13733,13734,14394, 14399, 17411 & 19474 of 2014 6 to ITC/ITI or Diploma, as the former was an 'Academic qualification' whereas the latter was a 'Technical qualification', to be acquired after the 10th standard or 12th standard, as the case may be and hence a 'higher qualification'. The version of the respondent Bank is that, the qualification for the post should be minimal, as over qualified candidates may take up the position temporarily, just in order to obtain experience and will leave the job on getting better employment. It is contended that the Bank has got every right to fix the minimum and maximum qualification for the post in question, depending upon the different 'job specification' and the need of the organization. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Andhra High Court 1995 (2) ALT 358 (Papanna Vs. The Personnel Manager, State Bank), 1983 (3) SLR 141 (FB) (State of Haryana and another) by the Punjab and Haryana High Court etc.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Sudalaimuthu vs Union Bank Of India on 11 December, 2017

4. After hearing the argument advanced on behalf of both sides, we are of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A.Unnikrishnan [(2006) 13 SCC 619] and Santosh Kumar Meena v. Government of NCT of Delhi [Order dated 29.7.2013 in CA No.6116 of 2013] are distinct on facts and that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ch.Papanna v. The Personnel Manager, State Bank of India, Hyderabad [(1996) 5 SLR 772 (DB)] is applicable to the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H G Ramesh - Full Document
1