Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.94 seconds)
J. Ashoka vs University Of Agricultural Sciences ... on 17 November, 2005 cites

Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others vs Chander Shekhar & Another on 10 March, 1997

13. Thus, it is to be seen that what is frowned upon the extension of equitable considerations contrary to law and contrary to the terms of the advertisement. The B.Ed. candidates were not qualified but yet they were extended the benefit in the said case. Whereas, in the instant case, the Board has taken into consideration equitable and humanitarian consideration in the context that the 3rd respondent would be deprived of all alternative avenues of securing other appointment, having regard to the age bar and other factors. Whereas, the petitioners is discharging his duty in a secured job in another University as Assistant Professor, the post for which he has now applied. Therefore, if equitable and humanitarian consideration have also weighed in the mind of the Board without sacrificing the requirements of law and merit, it cannot be said that the Board has erred in preferring respondent 3. If humanitarian and equitable considerations are added at balance with the mandatory legal requirements without sacrificing the requirement of excellence in merit, it cannot be said that the outcome of the decision of such a process is arbitrary, unreasonable or is guided by extraneous and irrelevant consideration. Though, Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma's case, C.R. Seshadri's case and Shankar Rao v. Chancellor, Karnataka University (DB), the facts involved and the ratio laid down therein have no application to the facts of the present case and the controversy raised. In fact, a perusal of Statute 15(4) framed by the University shows that out of qualified persons recommended by the University, the Board shall choose the best candidate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Board did not have the power to examine the panel of names and decide to choose the best suited candidate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 238 - B P Reddy - Full Document

State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974

13. Thus, it is to be seen that what is frowned upon the extension of equitable considerations contrary to law and contrary to the terms of the advertisement. The B.Ed. candidates were not qualified but yet they were extended the benefit in the said case. Whereas, in the instant case, the Board has taken into consideration equitable and humanitarian consideration in the context that the 3rd respondent would be deprived of all alternative avenues of securing other appointment, having regard to the age bar and other factors. Whereas, the petitioners is discharging his duty in a secured job in another University as Assistant Professor, the post for which he has now applied. Therefore, if equitable and humanitarian consideration have also weighed in the mind of the Board without sacrificing the requirements of law and merit, it cannot be said that the Board has erred in preferring respondent 3. If humanitarian and equitable considerations are added at balance with the mandatory legal requirements without sacrificing the requirement of excellence in merit, it cannot be said that the outcome of the decision of such a process is arbitrary, unreasonable or is guided by extraneous and irrelevant consideration. Though, Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma's case, C.R. Seshadri's case and Shankar Rao v. Chancellor, Karnataka University (DB), the facts involved and the ratio laid down therein have no application to the facts of the present case and the controversy raised. In fact, a perusal of Statute 15(4) framed by the University shows that out of qualified persons recommended by the University, the Board shall choose the best candidate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Board did not have the power to examine the panel of names and decide to choose the best suited candidate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 99 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next