Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 54 (0.05 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors vs Somvir Singh on 12 May, 2006
"If the essential educational qualification for
recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the
same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be
ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the
statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An
illegality cannot be regularised, particularly, when
the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only
an irregularity can be.(See Secy., State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1;,
National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, (2006)
5 SCC 493; and Post Master General, Kolkata v.
Tutu Das (Dutta), (2007) 5 SCC 317)".
Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Massey Dr. Abha ... vs Dr. S.R. Mehrotra And Ors on 3 February, 1998
In Meera Massey (Dr) v. S.R. Mehrotra (Dr) & Ors., AIR
1998 SC 1153, this Court extensively quoted the Report of the
University Education Commission, i.e., Radhakrishnan Commission,
wherein grave concern was expressed observing that "there is
negligence in applying criteria of merit in the selection" of teachers.
The Chandigarh Administration And ... vs Mrs. Rajni Vali And Others. on 12 January, 2000
(emphasis added)
16 In Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Rajni Vali & Ors.,
AIR 2000 SC 634, this Court observed as under:
Delhi Development Horticulture ... vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors on 4 February, 1992
18. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the
names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the
menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later
on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent
with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other
words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner
calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto
should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are
requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is
mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all
1
eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies
in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio
and Television as merely calling the names from the Employment
Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the
Constitution. (Vide: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees'
Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 789;
State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Piara Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 12 August, 1992
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC
2130; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P.
v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216; Arun
Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR
1998 SC 331; Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray
Mahoto & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2103; National Fertilizers Ltd. &
Ors. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319; Telecom District
Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402; State of Bihar
v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 65; and State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214).
The Excise ... vs K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors on 22 August, 1996
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC
2130; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P.
v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216; Arun
Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR
1998 SC 331; Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray
Mahoto & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2103; National Fertilizers Ltd. &
Ors. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319; Telecom District
Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402; State of Bihar
v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 65; and State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214).
Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. Etc on 1 December, 1997
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC
2130; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P.
v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216; Arun
Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR
1998 SC 331; Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray
Mahoto & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2103; National Fertilizers Ltd. &
Ors. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319; Telecom District
Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402; State of Bihar
v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 65; and State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214).
Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors vs Ram Ashray Mahoto & Ors on 31 March, 2005
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC
2130; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P.
v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216; Arun
Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR
1998 SC 331; Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray
Mahoto & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2103; National Fertilizers Ltd. &
Ors. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319; Telecom District
Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402; State of Bihar
v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 65; and State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214).