Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955
"Article 162 of the Constitution, no doubt,
provides that subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, the executive power of a State shall
extend to the matters upon which the legislature of the
State has competence to legislate and are not
confined to matters over which legislation has been
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7850 OF 2011 -32-
already passed. It is also well settled that so long as
the State Government does not go against the
provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and
amplitude of its executive power under Article 162
cannot be circumscribed; and if there is no enactment
covering a particular aspect, the Government could
carry on the administration by issuing administrative
directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a
law in that behalf (See Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of
Punjab and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v.
State of U.P.)".
Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 8 January, 2010
In case of Jitendra
Kumar Singh (supra), the precise issue that came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was as to whether an
OBC who had applied exercising his option as a reserved category
candidate thus becoming eligible to be considered against
"reserved vacancy", can also be considered against an
unreserved vacancy if he/she secures more marks than the last
candidate in the general category.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Others vs Shri Ramesh Kumar on 2 September, 1997
Likewise, in the case of Union
of India v. Ramesh Kumar (supra), the question that arose was
as to whether candidates belonging to reserved category who get
recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on account
of their merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession),
can opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for a reserved
category and thereby migrate to reserved category. Such
question came to be examined in the light of the relevant
statutory provisions i.e. the Civil Services Examination Rules
(amended vide notification dated 4.12.2004). The afore-noticed
two judicial precedents would not apply herein inasmuch as the
ex-Serviceman category in the present case were not seeking
migration but were selected in their own category.
Chairman, All Railway Rec. Board & Anr vs K. Shyam Kumar & Ors on 6 May, 2010
25. Even though, such criteria adopted by the Commission
is not a subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition,
still it is held that the discretion exercised by the
appropriate/Competent Authority towards determination of merit
inter se the candidates would not be interfered with by this Court
in the exercise of judicial review unless the same is shown to be
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7850 OF 2011 -28-
perverse and illegal. It can be safely concluded that the
Commission in adopting such criteria and determining inter se
merit between various categories including general category and
ex-Serviceman category candidates in the light of the provisions
of Rule 13-A, Appendix-III of 1976 Rules and Rules 5 and 9 of
1982 Rules has indeed struck a balance and has adopted a
harmonious approach. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment
Board and another v. K.Shyam Kumar and others, (2010)6 SCC
614 in this regard would be most relevant:
Secr.,A.P.D.Jain Pathshala & Ors vs Shivaji Bhagwat More & Ors on 4 July, 2011
27. Such proposition has held the field all through and
even in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, A.P.D.Jain Pathshala and others v. Shivaji Bhagwat
More and others, (2011)13 SCC 99, it was observed in the
following terms:
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan And ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 5 November, 1981
"Article 162 of the Constitution, no doubt,
provides that subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, the executive power of a State shall
extend to the matters upon which the legislature of the
State has competence to legislate and are not
confined to matters over which legislation has been
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7850 OF 2011 -32-
already passed. It is also well settled that so long as
the State Government does not go against the
provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and
amplitude of its executive power under Article 162
cannot be circumscribed; and if there is no enactment
covering a particular aspect, the Government could
carry on the administration by issuing administrative
directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a
law in that behalf (See Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of
Punjab and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v.
State of U.P.)".
Arvinder Singh Bains vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 24 May, 2006
28. Yet another poser that would require to be answered is
as to whether the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 is a
reasoned order and as to whether it discloses the basis of
determination of the seniority of PCS (Executive Branch) Officers
in question. The answer is clearly in the affirmative. A minute
perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of
Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 2265, as also Ajit Singh Januja and others v.
State of Punjab and others, JT 1996(2) SC 727 and Ajit Singh-II
and others v. State of Punjab and others, JT 1999(7) SC 153
have been noticed for embarking upon the exercise to determine
the seniority of PCS (Executive Branch) Officers. It has also been
noticed that the seniority had not been determined earlier in point
of time. Still further, in para 16 of the impugned order, it has
been recited that the inter se seniority of the PCS (Executive
Branch) Officers recruited through various Registers is being fixed
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7850 OF 2011 -33-
as per merit prepared by the Public Service Commission. The
reference to the letter dated 2.12.1992 in para 17 of the
impugned order is only with reference to the allocation and not
towards determination of a combined merit inter se the
candidates. As has been already noticed, the combined merit list
pertaining to PCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services
Examination was prepared and sent first in point of time by the
Commission to the State Government vide letter dated 4.7.2001
and which was thereafter revised in terms of letter dated
25.4.2005. Such combined merit list (as revised) forms the basis
of the final seniority list issued vide order dated 28.12.2010. The
impugned order, Annexure P8, cannot be termed to be bereft of
reasoning.
Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 1996
28. Yet another poser that would require to be answered is
as to whether the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 is a
reasoned order and as to whether it discloses the basis of
determination of the seniority of PCS (Executive Branch) Officers
in question. The answer is clearly in the affirmative. A minute
perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of
Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 2265, as also Ajit Singh Januja and others v.
State of Punjab and others, JT 1996(2) SC 727 and Ajit Singh-II
and others v. State of Punjab and others, JT 1999(7) SC 153
have been noticed for embarking upon the exercise to determine
the seniority of PCS (Executive Branch) Officers. It has also been
noticed that the seniority had not been determined earlier in point
of time. Still further, in para 16 of the impugned order, it has
been recited that the inter se seniority of the PCS (Executive
Branch) Officers recruited through various Registers is being fixed
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7850 OF 2011 -33-
as per merit prepared by the Public Service Commission. The
reference to the letter dated 2.12.1992 in para 17 of the
impugned order is only with reference to the allocation and not
towards determination of a combined merit inter se the
candidates. As has been already noticed, the combined merit list
pertaining to PCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services
Examination was prepared and sent first in point of time by the
Commission to the State Government vide letter dated 4.7.2001
and which was thereafter revised in terms of letter dated
25.4.2005. Such combined merit list (as revised) forms the basis
of the final seniority list issued vide order dated 28.12.2010. The
impugned order, Annexure P8, cannot be termed to be bereft of
reasoning.