Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.58 seconds)
Manoj Kumar Natwadiya S/O Shri Harphool ... vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2023 cites

Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996

7.6) That it is also wrong to say that the representation was decided without availability of record. The reason for availability of basic data despite the fact that physical record pertaining to this examination, i.e. dossier of non-selected candidates being weeded out, is that the copy of application containing basic data filled by the candidate in his/her application submitted in the exam is still available in electronic form with data processing agency of the Commission. Further, the result of this exam is also available on the website of the Commission. Hence all required date is available in electronic form. 7.7) That even if some mistake is committed and someone who is not meritorious is erroneously accorded appointment, the appropriate step would be to remove such candidate, rather than perpetuating such illegality. It is a settled position of law that illegality cannot be perpetuated. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgments of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors.: (1997) 1 SCC 35, Basawaraj and Ors. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/011482] (57 of 65) [CW-26389/2018] vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer: (2013) 14 SCC 81, Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab: (2010) 11 SCC 455, and Sneh Prabha vs. State of UP: (1996) 7 SCC 426.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 344 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Kuljit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 2010

7.6) That it is also wrong to say that the representation was decided without availability of record. The reason for availability of basic data despite the fact that physical record pertaining to this examination, i.e. dossier of non-selected candidates being weeded out, is that the copy of application containing basic data filled by the candidate in his/her application submitted in the exam is still available in electronic form with data processing agency of the Commission. Further, the result of this exam is also available on the website of the Commission. Hence all required date is available in electronic form. 7.7) That even if some mistake is committed and someone who is not meritorious is erroneously accorded appointment, the appropriate step would be to remove such candidate, rather than perpetuating such illegality. It is a settled position of law that illegality cannot be perpetuated. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgments of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors.: (1997) 1 SCC 35, Basawaraj and Ors. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:41 PM) [2023/RJJP/011482] (57 of 65) [CW-26389/2018] vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer: (2013) 14 SCC 81, Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab: (2010) 11 SCC 455, and Sneh Prabha vs. State of UP: (1996) 7 SCC 426.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 72 - A Lamba - Full Document

Ajit Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 November, 1995

The reason for non-inclusion of these vacant posts while preparing the Reserve List is attributed to the direction of MHA not to fill the posts of Constable (GD) in those particular States. The same has also been stated clearly in the impugned order dated 22.02.2018. Once the MHA has issued direction not to divert candidates from surplus State to those particular States, the Commission had no occasion to exercise the discretion of diversion on those 28,044 posts and therefore the Reserve List was rightly prepared on all India basis from non-selected candidates of surplus State against the vacancies that remained unfilled in deficit States (except J&K, North Eastern States and naxal/military affected States). The Allahabad High Court, on being faced with similar controversy, in the case of Ajit Singh vs. UOI (supra), which has been upheld by the Apex Court, also observed and held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 43 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Hari Om Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. Through The ... on 10 January, 2018

14. On the issue of non-availability of record, this Court is convinced of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents in stating that basic and relevant record is available in electronic form. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Apex Court judgment dated 10.01.2018 in the case of Hari Om Singh vs. UOI (supra) is also misconceived for the reason that the issue therein was limited to clerical error as the merit of the petitioner was not disputed and the Apex Court was of the view that for non-availability of record to correct mere clerical error, the appellant should not be made to suffer. In this case, all the petitioners are demonstrably low in merit. The respondents have rebutted the contentions made by the petitioners on purported similarly situated candidates vide detailed speaking order dated 22.02.2018 and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any irregularity in the same.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1