Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.75 seconds)
Shiv Prakash Maheshwari vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 8 October, 2001 cites

Ashok Kumar & Ors vs The Chairman, Banking Service ... on 9 November, 1995

3. On receipt of the recommendations of the aforesaid ten names, the Government of Rajasthan gave appointments to all the ten persons as per the merit list. However certain representations were made to the government than certain vacancies were still lying vacant. The State of Rajasthan, Department of Agriculture, however, vide its letter dated 3.10.1997, addressed to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, intimating that two vacancies were still lying vacant which were to be filed up and, therefore, request was made to send two names as per the merit. Thereupon, Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide its fetter dated 21.10.1997 sent all the six names as per the merit with the request that two of the said persons as per the merit of the reserve list and on the roster point can be filled up. Mr. Ashok Kumar Bansal and Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena who were at SI. No. 1 and 5 respectively in there serve list were appointed and it may be mentioned that appointment of Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena was from the category of Scheduled Tribe in the reserve list but Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena declined to join and therefore, his appointment was cancelled on 6.4.1998. Therefore, the remaining four persons who were selected as per the reserve list, whose names were sent on 21.10.1997 were appointed on 22.7.1998. While all these candidates whose names were included in the reserve list and who had been appointed on that basis were continuing in service as Assistant Agriculture Research Officers (Botany) on the basis of the order dated 27.7.1998, an order was passed on 30.6.2000, whereby, the appointment of five candidates mentioned therein including the present four appellants were put to notice that they had been given temporary appointments on the basis of the reserve list sent by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission but the Government of Rajasthan on reconsideration had found that according to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar and Ors, v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Ors. (1), in case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. Electricity Board of Stale of Haryana and Ors. (2), in case of Madanlal v. State of Jamrnu and Kashmir and Ors. (3) and in case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. (4), the future vacancies could not be filled up on the basis of the reserve list and their appointments had been made without the concurrence of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and it was in breach of the fundamental rights of other eligible candidates who could have competed against the further vacancies-had the vacancies been notified and therefore their appointments were contrary to the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and were unconstitutional and liable to be set aside. In this very notice, it was mentioned that therefore, according to the directions issued by the Stale Government on 3.6.2000, the services of the appellants are discharged in terms of Rule 23A (1) of Rajasthan Service Rules with the expiry of period of one months from the dale of notice and from such date, the services will be deemed to have been terminated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 131 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board And ... on 7 May, 1996

3. On receipt of the recommendations of the aforesaid ten names, the Government of Rajasthan gave appointments to all the ten persons as per the merit list. However certain representations were made to the government than certain vacancies were still lying vacant. The State of Rajasthan, Department of Agriculture, however, vide its letter dated 3.10.1997, addressed to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, intimating that two vacancies were still lying vacant which were to be filed up and, therefore, request was made to send two names as per the merit. Thereupon, Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide its fetter dated 21.10.1997 sent all the six names as per the merit with the request that two of the said persons as per the merit of the reserve list and on the roster point can be filled up. Mr. Ashok Kumar Bansal and Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena who were at SI. No. 1 and 5 respectively in there serve list were appointed and it may be mentioned that appointment of Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena was from the category of Scheduled Tribe in the reserve list but Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena declined to join and therefore, his appointment was cancelled on 6.4.1998. Therefore, the remaining four persons who were selected as per the reserve list, whose names were sent on 21.10.1997 were appointed on 22.7.1998. While all these candidates whose names were included in the reserve list and who had been appointed on that basis were continuing in service as Assistant Agriculture Research Officers (Botany) on the basis of the order dated 27.7.1998, an order was passed on 30.6.2000, whereby, the appointment of five candidates mentioned therein including the present four appellants were put to notice that they had been given temporary appointments on the basis of the reserve list sent by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission but the Government of Rajasthan on reconsideration had found that according to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar and Ors, v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Ors. (1), in case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. Electricity Board of Stale of Haryana and Ors. (2), in case of Madanlal v. State of Jamrnu and Kashmir and Ors. (3) and in case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. (4), the future vacancies could not be filled up on the basis of the reserve list and their appointments had been made without the concurrence of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and it was in breach of the fundamental rights of other eligible candidates who could have competed against the further vacancies-had the vacancies been notified and therefore their appointments were contrary to the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and were unconstitutional and liable to be set aside. In this very notice, it was mentioned that therefore, according to the directions issued by the Stale Government on 3.6.2000, the services of the appellants are discharged in terms of Rule 23A (1) of Rajasthan Service Rules with the expiry of period of one months from the dale of notice and from such date, the services will be deemed to have been terminated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 935 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Another vs Madan Mohan Singh And Others on 13 October, 1993

3. On receipt of the recommendations of the aforesaid ten names, the Government of Rajasthan gave appointments to all the ten persons as per the merit list. However certain representations were made to the government than certain vacancies were still lying vacant. The State of Rajasthan, Department of Agriculture, however, vide its letter dated 3.10.1997, addressed to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, intimating that two vacancies were still lying vacant which were to be filed up and, therefore, request was made to send two names as per the merit. Thereupon, Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide its fetter dated 21.10.1997 sent all the six names as per the merit with the request that two of the said persons as per the merit of the reserve list and on the roster point can be filled up. Mr. Ashok Kumar Bansal and Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena who were at SI. No. 1 and 5 respectively in there serve list were appointed and it may be mentioned that appointment of Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena was from the category of Scheduled Tribe in the reserve list but Mr. Shyam Sunder Meena declined to join and therefore, his appointment was cancelled on 6.4.1998. Therefore, the remaining four persons who were selected as per the reserve list, whose names were sent on 21.10.1997 were appointed on 22.7.1998. While all these candidates whose names were included in the reserve list and who had been appointed on that basis were continuing in service as Assistant Agriculture Research Officers (Botany) on the basis of the order dated 27.7.1998, an order was passed on 30.6.2000, whereby, the appointment of five candidates mentioned therein including the present four appellants were put to notice that they had been given temporary appointments on the basis of the reserve list sent by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission but the Government of Rajasthan on reconsideration had found that according to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar and Ors, v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Ors. (1), in case of Prem Singh and Ors. v. Electricity Board of Stale of Haryana and Ors. (2), in case of Madanlal v. State of Jamrnu and Kashmir and Ors. (3) and in case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. (4), the future vacancies could not be filled up on the basis of the reserve list and their appointments had been made without the concurrence of Rajasthan Public Service Commission and it was in breach of the fundamental rights of other eligible candidates who could have competed against the further vacancies-had the vacancies been notified and therefore their appointments were contrary to the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and were unconstitutional and liable to be set aside. In this very notice, it was mentioned that therefore, according to the directions issued by the Stale Government on 3.6.2000, the services of the appellants are discharged in terms of Rule 23A (1) of Rajasthan Service Rules with the expiry of period of one months from the dale of notice and from such date, the services will be deemed to have been terminated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 96 - Full Document
1