Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)
Rahul Singh Rathore vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 3 February, 2023 cites

The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate ... vs Ms. Rajni & Ors. on 5 March, 2013

"29. This Court is in consensus with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in The Chairman, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board &Anr. (Supra) that when respondents commence the process of selection for different posts on large scale, as to why provisions are not being made to draw wait list/ select panel to fill up the unfilled vacancies. We are also in agreement with the plea of respondents that appointment process consists of multiple rounds of selection which is a time taking process. While accepting this plea, it would not be misplaced to state that reserve panel/ wait lists are drawn by connected petitions the respondents to fill the unfilled vacancies, so that rollover of unfilled vacancies to the next appointment circle saves the time and money spent by the Government agencies. In the eventuality of there-being no wait list/ reserve panel, the appointment should be made from the pending list on the basis of merit and category.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Sheo Shyam And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 16 February, 2004

The applicant once again submitted representation to Respondent No.2 on 04.06.2018, which was also rejected by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present O.A. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant‟s name appeared at Sl. No.1 in the waiting list since the candidature of Respondent No.3 was cancelled for the reason stated hereinabove, it was incumbent upon the respondents to offer him appointment. She adds that the period of one year of the waiting list is to be reckoned from the date of the last recommendation was made. She draws support from the Notification dated 13.06.2013 wherein it is clearly stipulated that the Board had to draw a reserve panel/waitlist upto the extent of 10% of the post notified, in addition to the number of candidates selected, and the 5 Item No. 10 O.A. No. 3813/2018 said panel would be valid for a period of one year from the date of declaration of result and the vacancies arising due to different reasons that would include non- acceptance of offer of appointment, non-joining of the candidates, candidates not found eligible etc. She further adds that since the user department informed the respondents about the ineligibility of Respondent No.3, only on 24.11.2017, validity of the panel would reckon from the said date. The respondents have incorrectly and arbitrarily contended that since the tenure of the panel is valid for a period of one year, from the date of declaration of the first result, i.e., 17.10.2016 and thereby denying the offer of appointment to the applicant. She submits that purpose of preparing the waiting panel would only be meaningful, against the vacancies that remain unfilled on account of reasons that find mention in the notification dated 13.06.2013. The applicant cannot be deprived of the offer of appointment for the reason that the vacancy so arise after a period of one year, as reckoned from the date of first recommendation, and once the applicant‟s name appearing at Sl. No.1 in the waiting list, the respondents cannot be denied him appointment and the 6 Item No. 10 O.A. No. 3813/2018 vacancy so created after cancellation of Respondent No.3 should, in fact, be passed on to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Sheo Shyam and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 314, wherein it has been held that in absence of any statutory rules, the period of validity of panel would be reckoned from the last date of recommendation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next