Dr Venkateswaran V vs M/O Food on 18 December, 2019
ii. K. Balarama Raju vs. V. Subramanya Sarma
and others, (2011) 12 SCC 574;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)Yasin Khan vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 January, 2020
7. Learned counsel has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in case titled as 'K.Balarama Raju Vs. Ch.V. Subramanya
Sarma & Others', 2011(13) SCC 574 to contend that any relaxation in
qualification to permit unqualified candidates to be considered for
appointment, cannot be to the prejudice of qualified candidates and they could
not steal a march over qualified and selected candidates. Relevant extract of
the afore-mentioned decision is reproduced as under :
J Rama Krishna, E.G.Dist.,A.P. vs The State Of A.P.,Endowments,Guntur ... on 18 October, 2022
Similarly, in K. Balarama Raju v. V. Subramanya
Sarma and others2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically held that it is settled law that one should have
the qualifications on the date when the applications are
invited and any such relaxation to permit unqualified
candidates cannot be to the prejudice of the qualified
candidates and that they can be taken into the service but
cannot steal a march over the qualified and the selected
candidates.
B.Prabhakaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
(i)K.Balarama Raju v. V.Subramanya Sarma and Others [(2011) 13 SCC 574]
Dipali Sen vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 15 October, 2014
In K. Balaram Raju v. V. Subramanya Sarma and
others, (2011) 13 SCC 574, the Apex Court had an occasion to
consider a case of this nature. In that case, it was contended by
the first respondent therein that under Rules 7(7) and 8(4) of the
A.P. High Court Service, 1971, the requisite qualification for the
post of Computer was to possess a degree in typewriting,
capability in English in higher grade, and postgraduate diploma
in computer programming or postgraduate diploma in computer
applications. He had this qualification and therefore he applied
for that post, and when the test was conducted on 1-11-2000, he
cleared that examination. Nine other candidates also cleared the
said test including the three appellants in SLPs Nos. 598 and
5318 of 2009. However, they did not possess the aforesaid
requisite qualification of post graduate diploma in computer
programming or post graduate diploma in computer applications.
The High Court Administration, however, issued an order dated
7-11-2000 permitting them along with two others to acquire the
WP(C)No.3556/2014 Page 7 of 11
requisite prescribed qualification within one year failing which
they were to be reverted. In this order dated 7-11-2000 the three
appellants in SLPs Nos. 598 and 5318 of 2009 were shown at
Serial No. 1, 2 and 3, whereas the first respondent was shown at
Serial No. 4.
Ramesh Kumar Tomar vs Delhi Development Authority Delhi on 3 October, 2016
In K. Balarama Raju & Others v. Ch. V. Subrahmanya
Sarma, (2011) 13 SCC 574, the appellants were not possessing
the requisite qualification of P.G.Diploma in Computer
O.A.No.2380/2014
7
Application/Programming as on the qualifying test for promotion
to Computer Operators.
Smt. K.Neelima vs The State Of Ttelangana on 17 October, 2024
In support of the contentions that the respondents
cannot relax the qualifications mentioned in the rules without
amendment of rules, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
K.Balarama Raju Vs. V.Subramanya Sarma and Others 1.
1