Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Assam Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2005
Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 October, 1999
28) It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set
aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another
illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would
perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. If one
needs any authority on the point, the cases of (i) Gadde Venkateswara Rao v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 828; (ii) Maharaja
Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3609; (iii)
Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2000
SC 2976; (iv) Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889; (v) State
of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Ajit Singh Bhola & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 800 , and (vi)
Bhartiya Samaj Seva Trust Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, (2012) 9 SCC 210 may
be referred to. Following the same ratio, the Court is of the considered opinion
that if the interpretation sought to be given by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is to be accepted, then the petitioners, who have remained
unsuccessful in the recruitment process of the year 2009 for AB Constable in
Sivasagar District, the result of which was declared after the select list was
approved on 01.04.2010, would secure appointment after a lapse of 11 years
now. More so, when the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that (i)
the reasons assigned in the said Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 for not
Page No.# 42/42
selecting the petitioners is incorrect, wrong, not sustainable on facts or contrary
to the records, (ii) that any of the 126 petitioners in this writ petition had
secured more marks in his/her respective category, yet was deprived of
selection and appointment.
A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors vs G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors on 24 February, 2006
Hence not selected. Therefore, in respect
of the said 15 (fifteen) out of 167 petitioners in W.P.(C) 2725/2010, whose
reference has been made in paragraph 7 of the judgment, it appears from the
Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 by the respondent no. 2 that there are
justifiable reasons for not selecting the said petitioners. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioners has not been able to demonstrate from the judgment
dated 22.02.2019 that any finding has returned by this Court as to which of the
Page No.# 38/42
eligible petitioner was not selected. Therefore, the directions "... to consider the
case of the petitioners ..." as contained in the said judgment dated 22.02.2019
in W.P.(C) 2725/2010, cannot be read to mean that the respondent authorities
would be powerless to examine the marks obtained by the petitioners to see if
they were entitled to be appointed.
Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr.Pres.& Anr vs Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel & Anr on 14 September, 2012
28) It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set
aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another
illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would
perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. If one
needs any authority on the point, the cases of (i) Gadde Venkateswara Rao v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 828; (ii) Maharaja
Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3609; (iii)
Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2000
SC 2976; (iv) Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889; (v) State
of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Ajit Singh Bhola & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 800 , and (vi)
Bhartiya Samaj Seva Trust Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, (2012) 9 SCC 210 may
be referred to. Following the same ratio, the Court is of the considered opinion
that if the interpretation sought to be given by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is to be accepted, then the petitioners, who have remained
unsuccessful in the recruitment process of the year 2009 for AB Constable in
Sivasagar District, the result of which was declared after the select list was
approved on 01.04.2010, would secure appointment after a lapse of 11 years
now. More so, when the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that (i)
the reasons assigned in the said Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 for not
Page No.# 42/42
selecting the petitioners is incorrect, wrong, not sustainable on facts or contrary
to the records, (ii) that any of the 126 petitioners in this writ petition had
secured more marks in his/her respective category, yet was deprived of
selection and appointment.
Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 4 September, 2000
28) It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set
aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another
illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would
perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. If one
needs any authority on the point, the cases of (i) Gadde Venkateswara Rao v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 828; (ii) Maharaja
Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3609; (iii)
Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2000
SC 2976; (iv) Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889; (v) State
of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Ajit Singh Bhola & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 800 , and (vi)
Bhartiya Samaj Seva Trust Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, (2012) 9 SCC 210 may
be referred to. Following the same ratio, the Court is of the considered opinion
that if the interpretation sought to be given by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is to be accepted, then the petitioners, who have remained
unsuccessful in the recruitment process of the year 2009 for AB Constable in
Sivasagar District, the result of which was declared after the select list was
approved on 01.04.2010, would secure appointment after a lapse of 11 years
now. More so, when the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that (i)
the reasons assigned in the said Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 for not
Page No.# 42/42
selecting the petitioners is incorrect, wrong, not sustainable on facts or contrary
to the records, (ii) that any of the 126 petitioners in this writ petition had
secured more marks in his/her respective category, yet was deprived of
selection and appointment.
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
28) It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set
aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another
illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would
perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. If one
needs any authority on the point, the cases of (i) Gadde Venkateswara Rao v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 828; (ii) Maharaja
Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3609; (iii)
Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2000
SC 2976; (iv) Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889; (v) State
of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Ajit Singh Bhola & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 800 , and (vi)
Bhartiya Samaj Seva Trust Vs. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, (2012) 9 SCC 210 may
be referred to. Following the same ratio, the Court is of the considered opinion
that if the interpretation sought to be given by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is to be accepted, then the petitioners, who have remained
unsuccessful in the recruitment process of the year 2009 for AB Constable in
Sivasagar District, the result of which was declared after the select list was
approved on 01.04.2010, would secure appointment after a lapse of 11 years
now. More so, when the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that (i)
the reasons assigned in the said Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 for not
Page No.# 42/42
selecting the petitioners is incorrect, wrong, not sustainable on facts or contrary
to the records, (ii) that any of the 126 petitioners in this writ petition had
secured more marks in his/her respective category, yet was deprived of
selection and appointment.
1