Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)The Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs V. Sadanandam & Ors. Etc. Etc on 16 May, 1989
33. The members of the Selection Board or for that matter, any other
Selection Committee, do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the criteria
for selection unless they are authorised specifically in that regard by the
rules made under Article 309. It is basically the function of the Rule
making authority to provide the basis for selection. this Court in State of
Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. V. Sadanandam and Ors. : [1989]3SCR342 ,
observed as under :
S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994
In Ramachandra lyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
(1984)ILLJ314SC , it was observed :
Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987
35. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. v. Union of India and Ors.
:[1985] 2 SCR 367, if was observed that the Selection Committee does not
possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to
what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these decisions were followed in
sh Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Ors. (1987) 2 UJSC 657 and the
limitation of the Selection Committee were pointed out that it had no
jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum "marks which a candidate had to
secure at the viva-voce test.
B. S. Yadav And Others Etc vs State Of Haryana And Others Etc on 5 November, 1980
39. Liladhar's case was approved Ashok Kumar Yadav's case [1984] 4 SCC 417.
Parvez Qadir vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 October, 1974
37. If it were a mere matter of transition from one service to another
service of similar nature as, for example, from Provisional Civil Service
to All India Forest Service or from Provincial Civil Service to Indian
Administrative Service, the confidential character rolls could have
constituted a valid basis for selection either on merit or suitability as
was laid down by this Court in Pervez Qadir v. Union of India and Ors. :
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke And Ors. vs Dr. B.S. Mahajan And Ors. on 6 December, 1989
28. Coming now to the merits of the selection, we may, at the outset,
indicate that the decision of Selection Committee can be interfered with
only on limited grounds, namely, that there was illegality or material
irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or in its procedure
vitiating the selection of proved malafides affecting the selection etc. as
laid down by this Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. v. Dr. B.S.
Mahajan and Ors. : (1990)IILLJ470SC . Let us, therefore, examine whether
the selection, in the instant case, is vitiated by any of these factors as
also by the "Basis", "Mode & Procedure", allegedly, arbitrarily adopted by
the Selection Board in adjudging the suitability of Medical Officers for
their appointments on teaching posts.
Liladhar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 3 December, 1964
39. Liladhar's case was approved Ashok Kumar Yadav's case [1984] 4 SCC 417.