Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.63 seconds)
Pawan Kumar S/O Sh. Rattan vs State Of H.P And Others) on 31 December, 2021 cites

State Of M.P vs Raghuveer Singh Yadav on 8 August, 1994

[9] The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. To similar effect is exposition made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 151, which reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 192 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next