Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)
Saurav Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 October, 2014 cites

Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others on 23 February, 2007

However, this delay shall not be a reason to determine the issue in favour of the petitioner as the notification dated 08.12.2011 itself clearly indicates that the inclusion of OBC castes and the amendments in the caste of OBC of the earlier notification were made effective from the date of issuance of the notification. Such a situation do result in harsh consequences, but the issues have to be determined on settled legal principle and not being -8- egged by misplaced sympathies. If the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted then all those who might have fallen in that category and were also belonging to the same OBC caste, but may have consciously chosen not to apply for recruitment under the advertisement in question would be arbitrarily denied equal participation. On the well settled principles relating to recruitment to a public office and the sanctity attached to the cut off date as held in several judgments, such as in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (Supra) and in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), the action of the respondent no. 2, NTPC in denying employment to these petitioners on having failed to produce evidence/notification of declaration of the caste of OBC in the central list cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity or is arbitrary either.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 397 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 4 July, 2013

However, this delay shall not be a reason to determine the issue in favour of the petitioner as the notification dated 08.12.2011 itself clearly indicates that the inclusion of OBC castes and the amendments in the caste of OBC of the earlier notification were made effective from the date of issuance of the notification. Such a situation do result in harsh consequences, but the issues have to be determined on settled legal principle and not being -8- egged by misplaced sympathies. If the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted then all those who might have fallen in that category and were also belonging to the same OBC caste, but may have consciously chosen not to apply for recruitment under the advertisement in question would be arbitrarily denied equal participation. On the well settled principles relating to recruitment to a public office and the sanctity attached to the cut off date as held in several judgments, such as in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (Supra) and in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), the action of the respondent no. 2, NTPC in denying employment to these petitioners on having failed to produce evidence/notification of declaration of the caste of OBC in the central list cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity or is arbitrary either.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 110 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Kameshwar Prasad And Others vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 22 February, 1962

Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the learned Single Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1999 LAB. I.C. 1023 again on the same point that requirement of caste certificate on the cut off date is a must and no recruitment can be made if the candidate fails to produce the same. Learned counsel for the respondent- NTPC has also referred to the notification of 08.12.2011 which indicates that they are made effective from -6- the date of notification. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners have neither challenged the said notifications nor they can claim retrospective operation in view of the clear stipulation contained in the said notification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 147 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document
1   2 Next