Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.34 seconds)

Vivek Kumar Jaiswal & Ors vs Airport Authority Of India on 18 July, 2016

13. That apart, it appears the position under the Regulations, was not the same as in the case in hand. Further, the criteria was prescribed through internal notings. On facts, the judgment is distinguishable. The plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the said decision is not applicable for promotions, inasmuch as the decision itself suggest, that it would be for direct recruitment, by referring to pages 79 and 81 of the paper-book is concerned, no doubt, the position of law, when a recruitment is effected through limited departmental competitive W.P.(C) No.5771/2016 Page 14 of 18 examination, the recruitment must be held to be a promotion but on a closure look of the Rules, it is noted that the zone of consideration is not from a defined feeder cadre but from all the non-executives, working in Airports Authority of India, subject to the candidate having the qualification for direct recruitment. The aspect that whether the recruitment is by direct recruitment, promotion has no effect on the issue under consideration, as the circular dated November 12 2009, in terms of para 4 (ii), which is reproduced hereunder, does indicate that a candidate has to pass a written test for the recruitment in question.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Pankaj Nailwal And Anr. vs Secretary General, Supreme Court Of ... on 25 October, 2017

13. The reliance placed by Mr. Goyal on the judgment of this Court in the case of Airports Authority of India v. Vikas Singh and Ors and connected appeals (supra) is concerned, the said appeals were filed by the Airports Authority of India challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, who had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents namely Vikas Singh and others. Suffice to state, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The factual finding of the learned Single Judge in the said case was that the respondent did not fix the eligibility criteria/passing marks for the candidates before the recruitment process had commenced and the same was/were decided only after written test and interview were concluded. If that be so, the judgment of the learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Employees State Insurance Corporation ... vs Mohit Kumar Sharma on 20 December, 2025

21. We must, however, also consider the judgment of this Court in Airports Authority of India v. Vikas Singh & Ors., 2015:DHC:9384- DB, which was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed WP(C) 13280/2019 Page 15 of 16 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:23.12.2025 17:41:22 respondent. Therein, the Court was considering the appeal where the Management had decided to prescribe the cut-off marks for the aggregate obtained by the candidates in the written examination and in the interview, which was adopted post the conclusion of the process. It was only after the interview had been conducted that the benchmark, which was not stipulated earlier, was prescribed.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1