Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Sadhana vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 21 April, 2026 cites

Jyoti K.K. And Ors. vs Kerala Public Service Commission And ... on 13 March, 2002

"15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents possess higher qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid observations in Jyoti K.K. case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596] , permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder : (SCC p. 598, para 6) "6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 232 - Full Document

Chief Manager Punjab National Bank vs Anit Kumar Das on 3 November, 2020

33. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Anit Kumar Das, reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897 held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for courts to consider and assess the same. The advertisement for the posts in question provides that one must possess 'O' level Diploma in Computers or One Year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application from a recognized University or Institution. When the advertisement or the rules prescribed a particular qualification for appointment to a post, then anyone who does not possess the prescribed qualification cannot be considered for appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 75 - M R Shah - Full Document

Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad on 5 December, 2018

35. Similarly, in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, reported as (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Para 26 of the said judgment is extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 320 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Zahoor Ahmad Rather And Others vs State Of J&K; And Others on 1 August, 2017

In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 6 - Cited by 43 - T Rabstan - Full Document
1