Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Desai Mittal Baldevbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 January, 2020 cites

Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ... on 18 July, 2007

9.2. Keeping in view the principle enunciated in the case of Rajesh Kumar (Supra), the GPSC could not have counted the 14 female candidates appointed on open category who have occupied the reserved posts of SEBC (Female) category and in consonance with the reservation rules, due to short fall, the requisite number of women should have been taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates on the bottom of the list with a view to fulfill the criteria of women's reservation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 495 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Anil Kumar Gupta, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 28 July, 1995

candidate at Sr. No.644, one Ms.Pooja Bhatiya, SEBC (Female) with birth date 16.6.1986, whose name was deleted from the select list and then kept at Sr. No.308A of the waiting list was subsequently appointed. The respondents are therefore taking a contrary stand on the one hand holding that there is no waiting list for SEBC (Female) Candidates and on the other, appointing the candidate at Sr. No.308A. 3.6. Mr.Pujara places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Dariya v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission reported in 2007(8) SCC 785 and relied on the decision referred to therein in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. reported in 1995(5) SCC 173 to submit that the respondents were required to prepare firstly, list of Open Category Page 7 of 16 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 25 23:48:57 IST 2020 C/SCA/11509/2017 CAV ORDER 376 candidates then prepare list of 55 SC candidates, 107 ST candidates and 195 SEBC candidates. He would further submit that even 35 SEBC candidates who have otherwise been appointed on merit are considered against reserved category and thereby 35 SEBC candidates against reserved quota have been denied appointment. The respondents have given appointments to 129 SEBC Male and 65 Female candidates in the open category. It is in this context, the prayer is made in the petition. 3.7. Mr.Pujara has taken me to the reply of the GPSC and the State that the petitioner's case has not been considered as not having qualified because the cut off marks of 148 was considered in context of the date of birth in accordance with the Government Resolution. According to Mr.Pujara, it is incumbent for the State and GPSC to fill in the vacancies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 1021 - B P Reddy - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors vs Manjit Singh And Ors on 16 September, 2003

11. Keeping in view the decisions in the case of Manjit Singh (Supra) & Sat Pal (Supra), it is apparent that the petitioner was available and entitled to be included in the waiting list and being next available eligible candidate possessing the qualifying standard it was not open for the GPSC and the State to appoint 10 male candidates against the available vacancies for the reserved category of female candidates when petitioner was available as an eligible candidate having possessed the requisite marks.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 219 - B Kumar - Full Document

State Of J & K & Ors vs Sat Pal on 5 February, 2013

11. Keeping in view the decisions in the case of Manjit Singh (Supra) & Sat Pal (Supra), it is apparent that the petitioner was available and entitled to be included in the waiting list and being next available eligible candidate possessing the qualifying standard it was not open for the GPSC and the State to appoint 10 male candidates against the available vacancies for the reserved category of female candidates when petitioner was available as an eligible candidate having possessed the requisite marks.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 44 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1