Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.89 seconds)Manoj H.Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 April, 2013
In
O.A. No. 3182/2016
6.2 We notice that a detailed counter affidavit has been
filed wherein it has been averred on behalf of the
respondents that while perusing the SLP (C) No.
26967/2011 titled Manoj Manu Vs. Union of India and
others, it is learnt that the applicant therein was Assistant
of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) who appeared for
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 2005 and
he was aggrieved with the decision of UPSC for not
recommending names against the available 3 vacancies,
even when requisition was made by DoP&T. The stand of
the UPSC in Hon'ble High Court was that supplementary
list would not be issued except in two categories. namely,
"repeat" candidates (who participate in two LDCE and are
successful in the first examination and results have not
declared when the second Departmental Competitive
Examination was held) or "common" candidates (who get
selected in more than one category in LDCE). Hon'ble High
Court has accepted the submission of UPSC considering
the certain implication. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court
set aside the Order of High Court as well as Tribunal.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed "15... It is not a case
where the Government decided not to fill up further
vacancies. On the contrary DoP&T sent requisition to the
15
R.A. No. 122/2023
In
O.A. No. 3182/2016
UPSC to send six names so that the remaining vacancies are
filled up. This shows that in so far as Government is
concerned, it wanted to fill up all the notified vacancies...".
Further, placing reliance on several judgement and clause
4(c) of the Office Memorandum dated 14.7 1967, Hon'ble
SC issued Mandamus to the UPSC to forward the names of
the next three candidates to the DoP&T for appointment to
the post of Section Officer's Grade. Therefore, drawing
parity to the case, viz.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manoj Manu & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 2013
Manoj Mannu Vs. Union of India and
Others, will not be appropriate in this case, as vacancies
were filled up as and when same had arisen.
6.3 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No(S). Of 2024
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State
Electricity Board and Others5, a three Judge Bench of this Court
following Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others
(supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of
review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which
have already been addressed and decided.
Virender S. Hooda & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 1999
Manu Finlease Ltd. vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 27 October, 2003
11. Reliance has also been placed by the applicant on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mano Manu
& Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6707/2013
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26967/2011)
where it is stated that names can be recommended for
available vacancies. Paras 17 and 19 of the said judgment
read as under:
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Ajit Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 2 November, 1999
6.7 In the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa
and others, 1999 (9) SCC 596, the Supreme Court has
observed as under:-