Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 406 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing Ashok Kumar Sharma And Anr. vs Chander Shekher And Anr. on 18 December, 1992

Alphin George vs Institute Of Banking

The decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another v. Chander Shekher and Another (1993 Supp (2) SCC 611) was rendered in respect of a notification dated 9.6.1982 whereby applications were invited for the post of Junior Engineer in the service of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The last date stipulated for submission of applications was 15.7.1982. A pass in B.E.(Civil) examination was the minimum academic/technical qualification required for applying for the post. A large number of persons applied WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 13 pursuant to the said advertisement. 33 among the applicants had appeared for the B.E.(Civil) examination before 15.7.1982, but the results were published on 21.8.1982. The interviews were held from 24.8.1982 onwards. Though the 33 candidates were not qualified as on the specified date, they were interviewed and selected. Their selection was challenged in W.P.(C).No.250 of 1983 filed in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir contending that they had not acquired the requisite qualification as on the prescribed date namely 15.7.1982. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment delivered on 27.5.1983. No appeal was taken from the said judgment and it attained finality. Later, 4 other candidates filed W.P.(C).No.483 of 1983 in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir questioning the selection of the said 33 candidates. While the said writ petition was pending, appointment orders were issued based on the select list. The petitioners in W.P.(C). No.483 of 1983 were placed above the 33 candidates, whose selection they had questioned. Later, on 5.9.1984, another batch of selected candidates was appointed. W.P.(C).No.483 of 1983 was dismissed following the order dated 27.5.1983 dismissing W.P.(C).No.250 of 1983. An appeal was taken before a Division Bench and it was allowed by judgment dated 13.12.1991. The Division Bench held that the 33 candidates could not have been allowed to appear in the interview for WPC Nos.2338 & 4402/2013 14 the reason that they had not acquired the requisite academic/technical qualification by the prescribed date. The Division Bench however directed that the appointment of the said 33 candidates need not be set aside, but they should be treated as junior to all those selected persons who were fully qualified by the prescribed date. The 33 candidates and the State of Jammu & Kashmir moved the Apex Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P N Ravindran - Full Document

Sangita Mayda vs Veterinary Science And Animal ... on 12 January, 2017

“Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad Vs. Alpana the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Teerath Raj Kulaste vs Madhya Pradesh Lpublic Serveice ... on 1 December, 2016

"Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad Vs. Alpana the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Arnab Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 November, 2023

27 The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear. The qualifications of the candidate shall be examined on the last date of application unless otherwise specified in the advertisement. Thus, the ADI has ignored laid down principles of law when considering the date of requisition made to the employment exchange as the date Page 30 of 44 to consider the qualifications of the candidates and this ground cannot be held to be a good ground in law. The petitioner was qualified for the position of clerk and the impugned memo dated July 3, 2020, is liable to be set aside.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

Shivani Gehlot vs Union Of India on 20 April, 2018

"Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar, A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra, District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, M.V. Nair (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., 5 W.P. No.8871/2018 Allahabad Vs. Alpana the High Courthas held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which theeligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications;
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arnab Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 November, 2023

27 The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear. The qualifications of the candidate shall be examined on the last date of application unless otherwise specified in the advertisement. Thus, the ADI has ignored laid down principles of law when considering the date of requisition made to the employment exchange as the date Page 30 of 44 to consider the qualifications of the candidates and this ground cannot be held to be a good ground in law. The petitioner was qualified for the position of clerk and the impugned memo dated July 3, 2020, is liable to be set aside.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S B Saraf - Full Document

Umesh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 8 April, 2016

In view of these clear and specific conditions laid down in the advertisement those candidates who were not possessed of the B.E. qualifications were not eligible for applying nor their applications were liable to be entertained nor could they be called for interview. Eligibility for the post mentioned in the notification depended on possessing the qualification noted against each post. The expression, 'shall be possessed of such qualifications, is indicative of both the mandatory character of the requirement and its operation in presenting. That is a candidate must not only have been qualified but he should have been possessed of it on the date the application was made. The construction suggested by the 22 OA No.3585/2015 learned counsel for the appellant that the relevant date for purposes of eligibility was the date of interview and not the date of application or 15/07/1982 the last date for submission of forms is not made out from the language of the notification. Acceptance of such construction would result in altering the first part of the advertisement prescribing eligibility on the date of applying for the post as being extended to the date of interview. If it is read in the manner suggested then the requirement that incomplete applications and those not accompanied by the requisite certificates shall not be entertained, shall become meaningless."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next