Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.42 seconds)Krishan Yadav vs State Of Haryana (Mohan J.) on 12 May, 1994
5. The decisions relied on by Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. 5525 of 2020, proceed
10
on the basis that a selection process can be set aside if the court finds
sufficient reasons to do so. Counsel cites Krishan Yadav and Anr. Vs. State
of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 165 where several illegalities were committed in
selection of Taxation Inspectors by the subordinate Selection Board in the
State of Haryana.
Orissa Public Service Commn.& Anr vs Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr on 2 August, 2011
Orissa Public
Service Commission vs. Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 108 dealt
with the Orissa Superior Judicial Service where the respondent could not
clear the written test and claimed that her marks should be rounded-off to
45 per cent required for interview. The Supreme Court held that there were
other candidates who got more marks than the respondent and held that
when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the Courts are
bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences.
District Collector And Chairman ... vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi on 20 April, 1990
District
Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School
Society, Vizianagaram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 was a
case where the question arose whether a candidate who did not have the
requisite qualification should be allowed to join as a post-graduate teacher.
The Court emphasised the importance of qualifications and conditions of
appointment mentioned in the advertisement which could not be
disregarded. Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. M/s. Pure Industrial
Cock & Chem. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 2458 laid down that when a public
authority is asked to perform statutory duties which involves valuable rights
of citizens and entails consequences, it has to be construed as mandatory in
character.
The West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005
With regard to maintainability of the writ petitions in the face of Rules
18 and 20 of the 2016 Rules, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass
Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603, Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators
Association of India (2011) 14 SCC 337, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar
Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (2008) 12 SCC 675,
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S.Pandey (2005) 8 SCC 264 have been cited
on the issue of granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution when an
adequate, alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the writ
petitioner. The Supreme Court found in those cases that the statutory
remedy providing for a hierarchy of appeals under the specific statute was in
the nature of an 'adequate' remedy which would first have to be exhausted
before a writ court could intervene.
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
19. With regard to the contention that no right has accrued in favour of
the petitioners for invoking the jurisdiction of a Writ Court in an ongoing
selection process, Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 held
that a successful candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be
46
appointed unless the relevant recruitment Rules indicate to the contrary.
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Malkiat Singh on 11 October, 2004
Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Malkiat Singh (2005) 9 SCC 22 dealt with a
subsequent change in the policy of providing employment to persons whose
land had been acquired but the principle of there being no vested right of
appointment was reiterated nonetheless by the Supreme Court.
Vijay Kumar Mishra And Anr vs High Court Of Judicature At Patna To And ... on 9 August, 2016
In State of
UP vs. Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. High
Court of Judicature at Patna (2016) 9 SCC 313, the Supreme Court made a
distinction between selection and appointment. The principle enunciated in
the decisions cited does not apply to the present case. The writ petitioners
have not claimed any right to be appointed to the posts for which they have
participated in the selection process. The challenge is to the fairness and
probity in the conduct of the selection process. Hence, ousting the
petitioners from such challenge on the ground that they do not have a
vested right of appointment is stretching the defence too far. The petitioners
have a right guaranteed under the Constitution of India to subject an action
taken by the executive or a body controlled by the State to judicial scrutiny
which the petitioners have done in this case.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2006
In State of
UP vs. Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. High
Court of Judicature at Patna (2016) 9 SCC 313, the Supreme Court made a
distinction between selection and appointment. The principle enunciated in
the decisions cited does not apply to the present case. The writ petitioners
have not claimed any right to be appointed to the posts for which they have
participated in the selection process. The challenge is to the fairness and
probity in the conduct of the selection process. Hence, ousting the
petitioners from such challenge on the ground that they do not have a
vested right of appointment is stretching the defence too far. The petitioners
have a right guaranteed under the Constitution of India to subject an action
taken by the executive or a body controlled by the State to judicial scrutiny
which the petitioners have done in this case.