Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Munna Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 April, 2000
14. In consonance with the stand of the petitioners in writ petition
No. 5271 of 2024, Mr. Ajay Deshpande, their learned advocate, would
9/26
WP 5271 5313.odt
submit that according to the Recruitment Rules of 1983, the educational
qualification for the post of Craft Instructor, expressly provides that the
candidate must be a diploma holder in the requisite trade. He would submit
that the Recruitment Rules of 1983 do not expressly state that it is a
minimum qualification. He would submit that possessing the higher
qualification, as provided in clause 8.1 of the advertisement, stating that
even the degree holders would be eligible, would not dispense with the
requirement of possessing a diploma in concerned trade. He would submit
that this clause merely takes care of the trite legal position as laid down in
Munna Roy (supra) that the higher qualification cannot be a
disqualification. However, he submitted that though no objection can be
taken for participation of the degree holders that would not dispense with
the basic requirement of possessing the diploma. Without there being any
such rule, dispensing such diploma and allowing the candidates and
selecting them, who are merely possessing degree in the respective trade,
should not have been resorted to and would be rather inconsistent with the
Recruitment Rules of 1983. He would submit that clause 8.1 would be
inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules of 1983, if it is to be interpreted in
the manner in which it has been done by the respondents and which has
been found favour with the tribunal.
Devesh Sharma vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 15 December, 2020
32. Precisely for these reasons, the decisions in the matter of Devesh
Sharma (supra), making a distinction, holding that in respect of post where
the requisite qualification was D.El.Ed., possessing only B.Ed. qualification
or the decision in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) wherein the qualification
21/26
WP 5271 5313.odt
prescribed as SCC+ITI for the post of technician-III was declared as not to
be treated as a lower qualification than the diploma, one will have to follow
Puneet Sharma (supra), wherein, a degree in engineering has been held to
be higher/equivalent qualification than the diploma in that discipline for the
post of Junior Engineer.
Jyoti K.K. And Ors. vs Kerala Public Service Commission And ... on 13 March, 2002
However, as we have
cursorily observed herein above, even if the Recruitment Rules of 1983 did
not expressly mention that the degree holders would be eligible, in light of
Jyoti K.K. (supra), conversely, when those also do not expressly exclude the
degree holders, by analogy even Puneet Shamra (supra) would be relevant
and has been rightly relied upon by the Tribunal.
Ranajit Kumar Meher vs State Of Orissa &Amp Ors. on 10 January, 2017
In the matter of Ranjit Kumar Meher (supra) the qualification
prescribed in the advertisement was not in consonance with the recruitment
rules and since the appellant before the Supreme Court admittedly was not
possessing the qualification as prescribed by the rules, he was held
ineligible. Again, in the matter in hand, holding of degree in engineering in
the respective trade is admittedly a higher qualification and has not been
expressly excluded in Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules of 1983. Therefore,
the petitioners are not entitled to derive any benefit even from this decision.
Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors on 3 April, 2006
He would refer to Ranjit Kumar Meher
vs. State of Orissa and others : (2017) 4 SCC 568 and Employees' State
Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India and others, (2022) 11 SCC 392 ,
which in turn, followed Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service
Commission & Ors; (2006) 9 SCC 507. He would submit that the tribunal
has erred in appreciating such trite principle which has resulted in dismissal
of the original application, illegally. He would refer to the following
decisions:-
Puneet Sharma vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... on 7 April, 2021
However, as we have
cursorily observed herein above, even if the Recruitment Rules of 1983 did
not expressly mention that the degree holders would be eligible, in light of
Jyoti K.K. (supra), conversely, when those also do not expressly exclude the
degree holders, by analogy even Puneet Shamra (supra) would be relevant
and has been rightly relied upon by the Tribunal.