Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.31 seconds)
Neelmani Jaiswal vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 March, 2022 cites

M.P. Public Service Commission vs Navnit Kumar Potdar on 19 September, 1994

In the case of M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr. JT (1994) 6 SC 34 OA No. 1204/2020 302 this Court has upheld short listing of candidates on some rational and reasonable basis. In that case, for the purpose of short listing, a longer period of experience than the minimum prescribed was used as a criterion by the Union Public Service Commission for calling candidates for an interview. This was upheld by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 199 - N P Singh - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs T. Sundararaman & Ors on 9 April, 1997

The very fact that the Commission shall adopt a short-listing criteria, in case the number of applications is large, was very specially mentioned in the Notification itself and was known to everyone including the applicant. A detailed procedure was also followed by UPSC in short-listing the candidates for this post, in terms of the criteria that was indicated in the Notification. Higher qualification has been considered against the minimum eligibility qualification. This aspect has been dealt with at length in the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the matter of Union of India v. T. Sundararaman, (1997) 4 SCC 664, which held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Jha & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 September, 2017

It is also submitted that this short-listing criteria clearly prescribes that number can be restricted by any or more of the following methods including, "on the basis of higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement". It is also submitted that all the successful candidates who are also private respondents possess requisite qualification and, in fact, possess higher educational qualifications. It is also pointed out that the applicant himself has qualification which is higher than the qualification prescribed and, therefore, on equal footing as other candidates. Private respondents have also relied upon the following judgments, including the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Another (supra):-
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 37 - J Saran - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh Etc. Etc vs P. Dilip Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc on 3 February, 1993

In catena of above cited judgments, this aspect has been dealt with at length that once the candidate accepts the condition, laid down in the Notification, after not being successful, he cannot challenge the whole selection criteria. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna has remanded this case as the same was not decided on merits but on technical grounds on the principle of estoppel by the Patna Bench of this Tribunal. It was specifically mentioned that although he cannot challenge the advertisement, but after the result, the person, under wrong premise, has been appointed, the applicant has a right to challenge the selection on the plea that the persons who have been selected do not possess requisite qualification and the procedure has not been followed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 169 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next