Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Limitation Act, 1963
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Rajkishore Nanda & Ors Etc. Etc on 3 June, 2010
16. Upon bare perusal of the records, it is evidently
clear that the first phase of recruitment was concluded in the year
2007, while the second phase was concluded in 2010. In light of
this, it is indisputable that the petitioners approached the District
Appellate Authorities only after the closure of both the first and
second phases of the recruitment process. Furthermore, it is an
Patna High Court CWJC No.16170 of 2022 dt.07-03-2025
43/63
admitted fact that the petitioners were not appointed to the said
post by December 2010. Moreover, any vacancies that arose in
February 2012 would be categorized as future vacancies and
could not be considered under the concluded phases of the
recruitment process as it is a well settled principle of law and
upheld by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of State of Orissa v.
Rajkishore Nanda, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 and in
particular in para-11, what has been stated, is being reproduced
herein below :
State Of Punjab vs Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr on 30 October, 2001
17. Thus, based on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, it is pertinent to mention here that no appointment
can be made on future vacancy because it will be in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16170 of 2022 dt.07-03-2025
44/63
contravention of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The same has also been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma,
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 113, especially in Para 4, which is
quoted herein below:
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
29. Now, with respect to the issue of condonation of delay in
filing the appeal before the State Appellate Authority by the
Respondents, I am of the considered view that the same has been
extensively discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Collector (Land Acquisition) v. Katiji, reported in (1987) 2 SCC
107 at page 108. The observations made therein are significant in
determining the approach towards condonation of delay, wherein
Patna High Court CWJC No.16170 of 2022 dt.07-03-2025
53/63
the Hon'ble Court has underscored that substantial justice must
prevail over technical considerations, and that a pragmatic and
just approach should be adopted while dealing with delay in
filing the appeals. Accordingly, the principles laid down in the
aforementioned judgment shall govern the present matter. For the
sake of reference, I may quote the relevant extracts of the
aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
State Of Haryana vs Chandra Mani & Ors on 30 January, 1996
30. As, far as an appeal by the "State" is concerned before the
State Appellate Authority this court takes the reference of the
guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132 at
page 138.
1