Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989
15. As we called for the records from UPSC and the records were produced before us by the learned Government Pleader. We have gone through the records and we find that the UPSC has considered the applicant's case also and his case has been rejected only on merits and the sixth respondent has been selected. It is not as if the applicant's case is not at all considered by the UPSC. Whether he is qualified to apply or not, that do not stand in the way now as he has also considered alongwith the other candidates for the said post and he has not been selected. As such when the applicant's case has also considered and has not selected, he cannot have any grievance. It is settled law, that a candidate can ask to be considered for a post but he cannot claim selection, that is Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As such, we do not see any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been held so by the Supreme Court in P. Mahendran and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. (1990 (I) SLR 307) that if a candidate applied for a post in response to an advertisement he has a right to be considered for selection. That is all. The Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 308.
Santosh Kumar Singh And Ors. vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors. ... on 3 July, 1998
It is true that we find from the Notification the last date for receipt of the application is on or before 20.12.96 to the Deputy Secretary to Government (Works) Chief Secretariate, Pondicherry. It is the case of the applicant that he alone applied within the time and the other three applicants had not. We fail to understand this. The sixth respondent has sent his application to his parent department on 9.12.96. It was forwarded alongwith the C.Rs. to the 4th respondent by speed post on 18.12.96 due to the delay in the postal department the application was delivered on 23.12.96, as 21.12.96, 22.12.96 being holidays (Saturday and Sunday). As we are not able to understand how the application of the sixth respondent can be considered to be out of time. So we are notable to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the sixth respondent's application has been received late by the respondents and as such the application ought not to have been considered. The very same question came up for consideration before the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in Santosh Kumar v. U.P.S.C. and Ors., (1995) 30 ATC 737, the Tribunal had held that considering the late recipe of application form in a recruitment process when the delay isn' t attributable to the candidate, the applicant has to be considered for the post. The Tribunal has considered this question and has held at page 740 in para 9 as follows :
The Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of ... on 2 November, 1962
In the case Petland Turkey Red Dye Works Company Limited v. C.I.T. (AIR 1963 SC 1484} there was just a request to send certain amount of sale proceeds by a demand draft to be drawn in a Bank in Rajkot. The Court held that the party must be presumed to have intended that the demand draft at Rajkot should be sent according to the normal course business usage that is, by post. The Post Office consequently became an agent of the Dye Works Company and the sale proceeds were thus received by it in the Taxable Territory. The law, therefore, is clear that by stipulation made by the UPSC itself, the Post Office is chosen as its Agent. By Section 14(F) Evidence Act, there is a presumption that a properly addressed and posted registered letter had reached the addressee in due cause. The UPSC cannot be heard to say in the circumstances. That delay in the receipt of the application would involve a denial of his right to sit in the Examination. The fault, if any did not lie with the candidate at all. All legal principles support his claim."
Upen Chandra Gogoi vs State Of Assam & Ors on 20 March, 1998
The learned Government Pleader also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Upan Chandra Gogai v. State of Assam (AIR 1998 SC 1289) for the proposition that a candidate applied in response to an advertisement had to meet the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and as the applicant is not qualified, he cannot maintain this application.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 14 January, 1998
9. The learned Government Pleader relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1998 SC 966)with regard to the principle of estoppel,wherein the Supreme Court has held that this Doctrine cannot be invoked for enforcement of "promise" made contrary to law. The learned Government Pleader referred this decision for the proposition that just because the application has been entertained it cannot be said that he is qualified to apply for the post.
1