Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 92 (1.51 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
On the point of obiter dictum, he relied upon the judgment rendered in
the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., reported
in (2007) 5 SCC 428. Extract of relevant paragraph 26 of the said judgment
is quoted herein below:
Anurag Patel vs U.P. Public Service Commission And Ors on 29 September, 2004
In Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission2 this
Court was called upon to consider whether more meritorious
candidates of reserved category who were adjusted against the
posts earmarked for general category were not entitled to make
a choice of the post earmarked for reserved category. The facts
as noticed by this Court were that the third respondent i.e. Rajesh
Kumar Chaurasia in CA No. 4794 of 1998, who secured 76th place
in the select list, filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 46029
of 1993 before the High Court of Allahabad contending that he
was appointed as a Sales Tax Officer, although the appellant in CA
No. 4794 of 1998 i.e. Nanku Ram (Anurag Patel) who was also a
Backward Class candidate, was appointed as a Deputy Collector,
who according to the third respondent, had secured 97th rank in
the select list, a rank lower than him. Similarly, 8 persons, all
belonging to Backward Classes, who find their names in the select
list filed Writ Petition No. 22753 of 1993 alleging that they were
entitled to get postings in higher cadre of service as the persons
who secured lower rank in the select list were given appointment
to higher posts. The first petitioner in the writ petition i.e. Shri
Rama Sanker Maurya and the second petitioner i.e. Shri Abdul
Samad were at Serial Nos. 13 and 14 in the select list. According
to these petitioners, persons lower in rank who got appointment
in the reserved category were given postings on the ground that
those posts were earmarked for being appointed in Class II
services.
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Taniya Malik vs Registrar General Of The High Court Of ... on 16 February, 2018
77. Similarly, so far as the stand of the JPSC and State with regard to
minimum qualifying marks in each paper is concerned, the same has got no
leg to stand because on the vehement argument of the JPSC and the State,
coordinate Bench has interpreted Clause-13 of the advertisement on the basis
of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taniya Malik
(supra).
Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors on 3 April, 2006
-99- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters
terms of an advertisement cannot override the statutory provision and error if
any in the advertisement being inconsistent with the Rules would not create
any right in favour of the candidates. He relied upon the judgment rendered
in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. UP Public Service
Commission & Ors., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507.
Union Of India vs Ramesh Ram & Ors on 7 May, 2010
39. Much emphasis has been placed on behalf of the learned counsel for
the petitioners in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra). In that case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering the validity of amended Rule 16(2) of the Civil
Services Examination Rules which permitted a candidate belonging to reserved
category and recommended against unreserved vacancies, to be adjusted
against reserved vacancies to enable the said candidate to get a service of
higher choice in the order of preference. In the State of Jharkhand, there is no
rule of migration at the time of 6th Combined Civil Services Examination. Thus,
the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not helping
the petitioners.