Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.30 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013
Moreover, it appears that the Constitution Bench
Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024
56/69
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered
in the case of B. N. Nagarajan Vs. State of
Mysore, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1942 : 1966 SCC
OnLine SC 7 was not brought to the notice of Their
Lordships in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. case,
apart from the fact that the aforesaid order passed
in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (supra)
is not conclusive for the purposes of determination
of the lis involved in the present case.
Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
26. On a compendious consideration of the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of B. N. Nagarajan
(Supra), as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases of Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. (Supra), N.T.
Devin Katti & Ors. (Supra), P. Mahendran &
Ors. (Supra), Hemani Malhotra (supra), K.
Manjusree (Supra), Tamil Nadu Computer
Science BED Graduate Teachers Welfare
Society (1) (supra), Md. Raisul Islam & Ors
(supra) and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel &
Ors. (Supra), this Court finds that it is now a well
settled law that a candidate has the right to be
considered in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in the advertisement, as his right
crystallizes on the date of publication of
advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right
of being considered for selection is accordance with
the rules as they existed on the date of
advertisement and he cannot be deprived of that
limited right on the amendment of rules during the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024
65/69
pendency of selection unless the amended rules
are retrospective in nature and moreover, rules of
the game cannot be permitted to be changed
during the selection process or when it is over,
either it be with regard to the eligibility criteria or
the procedure of recruitment/selection, hence this
Court holds that the notice dated 19.09.2023, to
the extent it changes the procedure of
recruitment/selection is arbitrary and unjustified,
thus the notification dated 19.09.2023, to the
extent it has changed the procedure of recruitment
as provided for in the Advertisement No. 07 of 2022
dated 28.07.2022, is quashed and the respondent-
Commission is directed to publish the merit list by
tabulating the marks of the candidates, including
the writ petitioners, as per the procedure for
recruitment provided for in clause-4 of the said
Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022.
Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987
14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash
Chander Marwaha does not appear to have
been brought to the notice of Their Lordships
in Manjusree. This Court in Manjusree relied
upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024
53/69
India, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of
India and Durgacharan Misra v. State of
Orissa. In none of the cases, was the
decision in Subash Chander Marwaha
considered.
N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990
26. On a compendious consideration of the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of B. N. Nagarajan
(Supra), as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases of Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. (Supra), N.T.
Devin Katti & Ors. (Supra), P. Mahendran &
Ors. (Supra), Hemani Malhotra (supra), K.
Manjusree (Supra), Tamil Nadu Computer
Science BED Graduate Teachers Welfare
Society (1) (supra), Md. Raisul Islam & Ors
(supra) and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel &
Ors. (Supra), this Court finds that it is now a well
settled law that a candidate has the right to be
considered in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in the advertisement, as his right
crystallizes on the date of publication of
advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right
of being considered for selection is accordance with
the rules as they existed on the date of
advertisement and he cannot be deprived of that
limited right on the amendment of rules during the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024
65/69
pendency of selection unless the amended rules
are retrospective in nature and moreover, rules of
the game cannot be permitted to be changed
during the selection process or when it is over,
either it be with regard to the eligibility criteria or
the procedure of recruitment/selection, hence this
Court holds that the notice dated 19.09.2023, to
the extent it changes the procedure of
recruitment/selection is arbitrary and unjustified,
thus the notification dated 19.09.2023, to the
extent it has changed the procedure of recruitment
as provided for in the Advertisement No. 07 of 2022
dated 28.07.2022, is quashed and the respondent-
Commission is directed to publish the merit list by
tabulating the marks of the candidates, including
the writ petitioners, as per the procedure for
recruitment provided for in clause-4 of the said
Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
32. The respondents have also placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in the
case of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in
our considered view, the facts of the
aforesaid decision are quite different from
the present case. A change was introduced
for the first time after the entire process was
over, based on the decision made by the Full
Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024
50/69
Court qua the cut off. Secondly, it is not as if
the private respondents were nonsuited
from participating in the recruitment
process. The principle governing changing
the rules of game would not have any
application when the change is with respect
to selection process but not the qualification
or eligibility. In other words, after the
advertisement is made followed by an
application by a candidate with further
progress, a rule cannot be brought in,
disqualifying him to participate in the
selection process. It is only in such cases,
the principle aforesaid will have an
application or else it will hamper the power
of the employer to recruit a person suitable
for a job.
State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
stipulating the procedure for selection, to a larger
Bench, especially taking into account the fact that
the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex in the
case of Subash Chander Marwaha (Supra) was
not brought to the notice of Their Lordships either
in the K. Manjusree case or in the cases which
have been cited and relied upon by the Ld. Counsel
for the petitioners. It is stated that the aforesaid
reference is still pending adjudication.