Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Basil Attipetty @ Basil A.G vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2010 cites

B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply And ... on 3 April, 2006

5. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the selection of the few candidates made from out of several candidates applied for without appraising their relative merit is arbitrary and liable to be struck down. The respondents on the other hand relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.K.Jain v. Union of India, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 119 and in B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association, reported in 2006(11) SCC 731, and contended that this Court WP(C) Nos.34472 of 2011 & connected cases -13- should not allow this contention to be raised in Public Interest Litigation. The Honourable Supreme Court has clearly stated that it is for the aggrieved person to challenge selection, if the same was done without evaluating relative merit. We find force in this contention because none of the applicant for the post has approached this Court challenging selection of members made by the selection committee. Even on merits, we do not find any justification to assume that selection was made by selection committee in an arbitrary manner merely because they have not conducted any interview or recorded evaluation of relative merit of candidates. Admittedly, the three Administrative and the two Judicial Members selected by the selection committee have the qualifications prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In fact, two of the Administrative Members selected are already appointed after obtaining approval from the Chief Justice of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 212 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Kumar Padma Prasad vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 March, 1992

Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1213, contended that WP(C) Nos.34472 of 2011 & connected cases -14- even if appointment is made after obtaining approval from the Chief Justice of India, the High Court can still exercise judicial review in the matter of legality of selection. The contention raised by the respondents is that the case referred above though led to cancellation of appointment of a High Court Judge made with the approval of the Chief Justice of India, the ground for quashing the appointment is lack of eligibility. However, the petitioners have no case that the candidates selected by the selection committee are not eligible for selection. We should keep in mind that the selection made is to a high level judicial post as Members of the Administrative Tribunal. Even though there is no legal bar, we do not think there is any necessity or justification to conduct written examination for the applicants to evaluate their relative merit. In fact such a procedure may even scare away suitable or eligible candidates from applying for the post or participating in the selection process. At the maximum, an interview could have been conducted, which also is dispensed with by the Committee probably because relevant details based on which WP(C) Nos.34472 of 2011 & connected cases -15- selection has to be made are available in the applications or the documents submitted along with it. So long as the selected Administrative Members are concerned, they have held the post equivalent to Secretary to Government of India and both are retired IAS officers without any black mark in service. Their selection was approved by the State Government, Governor, Central Government and the Chief Justice of India, and so much so, we do not find any justification to interfere with their appointment. So far as the selection of the two Judicial Members are concerned, both of them are practicing advocates in the High Court and the Chairman of the selection committee being the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunal, who was until then a Judge of the High Court, should have knowledge about the capacity, character and suitability of these candidates. So much so, we do not think the selection made is without any basis and without evaluating the merit of the candidates. Of course when several applicants apply for the post, relative merit has to be assessed for all the eligible WP(C) Nos.34472 of 2011 & connected cases -16- candidates, even if the Rules do not expressly provide. This is because a fair procedure for selection should involve equal opportunity to all candidates. However, this issue arises for consideration only when complaint is from an aggrieved applicant which is not the case here. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the selection of members made by the selection committee. Consequently, we reject this contention raised by the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 96 - K Singh - Full Document

L. Chandrakumar vs India And Others on 7 September, 1993

9. The last issue to be considered is about the validity of Ext.P15 order issued by the Registrar General prohibiting filing of service cases in the High Court over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. It is a settled position by virtue of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 that the administrative Tribunal on constitution shall be the first Court of contest for service matters over which they have jurisdiction and the High Court will be only exercising judicial review that too by Division Bench of the High Court. Even going by the settled law on judicial review, High Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction when there is an effective alternate remedy for the party. So much so, the Registrar General's order is a declaration of legal position settled by judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court above referred. Consequently, in all service matters, over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, the dispute should be first raised before the Tribunal and the High Court will exercise judicial review only WP(C) Nos.34472 of 2011 & connected cases -22- against orders of the Tribunal. We therefore reject the challenge against Ext.P15 order issued by the Registrar General of the High Court as devoid of any merit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

R.K. Jain vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993

5. The contention raised by the petitioners is that the selection of the few candidates made from out of several candidates applied for without appraising their relative merit is arbitrary and liable to be struck down. The respondents on the other hand relied on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in R.K.Jain v. Union of India, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 119 and in B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association, reported in 2006(11) SCC 731, and contended that this Court WP(C) Nos.34472 of 2011 & connected cases -13- should not allow this contention to be raised in Public Interest Litigation. The Honourable Supreme Court has clearly stated that it is for the aggrieved person to challenge selection, if the same was done without evaluating relative merit. We find force in this contention because none of the applicant for the post has approached this Court challenging selection of members made by the selection committee. Even on merits, we do not find any justification to assume that selection was made by selection committee in an arbitrary manner merely because they have not conducted any interview or recorded evaluation of relative merit of candidates. Admittedly, the three Administrative and the two Judicial Members selected by the selection committee have the qualifications prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In fact, two of the Administrative Members selected are already appointed after obtaining approval from the Chief Justice of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 314 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next