Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)
Appellate Side vs Moumita Sen & Others on 19 April, 2016 cites

Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors on 3 April, 2006

25. In the present case we are concerned with Judges to be appointed to Courts subordinate to the High Court of Calcutta. These appointments are to be made inconsonance with the Judicial service Rules and the judgment in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) & Anr vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors reported in (2008) 17 SCC 703. The criticism of the learned Counsel Mr. Mukherjee of the High Court in the matter of recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is, in our opinion, unfounded. We do not find that the Hon'ble Chief Justice or the High Court administration has acted in an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner as suggested by the learned Counsel. We are also not convinced with the argument that the list of selected candidates was manipulated in order to accommodate Abdul Hoque. Abdul Hoque belonged to the reserved category. He was placed in the Serial No. 93 of the select list of 117 candidates which was declared by the Public Service Commission. In the modified list which was issued on 8th May, 2015, Abdul Hoque was at Serial No.48 and belongs to the OBC(A) category. The submission of the learned Counsel Mr. Mukherjee was that the roster point has been changed after the anticipated vacancies which had crystalized were added to the list of confirmed vacancies. This submission is also unsustainable. Although the respondents and the applicants figured in the select list in view of the vacancies available for the roster point, it was not possible to accommodate them. The submission that the communication dated 5th May, 2015 had upset the earlier roster point is also not tenable. In the earlier communication, 25 unreserved posts were available out of 38 clear vacancies whereas after the 52 clear vacancies were considered 35 unreserved vacancies became available for being filled in with candidates from the select list of the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination held in the year 2014. The respondents who all belong to the unreserved category were far below in the select list at Nos. 36, 38, 44 and 87. Similarly the applicants in CAN 1920 of 2016 are at serial Nos. 41, 42 and 101 in the same select list of 117 candidates. They can have no grievance that the vacancies in the unreserved category were reduced by the subsequent recasting of the vacancies. They were unable to cross the line and secure appointments because they fail short of the merit required. As mentioned earlier we do not find that the High Court has acted arbitrarily in appointing those whose names figured in the panel of 52 candidates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 310 - C K Thakker - Full Document

M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal vs Nanuram Yadav & Ors on 25 September, 2007

He submitted that the principles to be adopted in matters of public appointments which had been formulated in by the Supreme Court in M.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhopal vs. Nanuram Yadav & Ors reported in (2007) 8 SCC 264 had been given a go bye in order to accommodate one Abdul Hoque. He further submitted that Abdul Hoque gained a "back door appointment de hors the rules". Therefore it was necessary to cancel his appointment. He then submitted that although the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court is vested with the powers of appointment of the staff of the High Court or indeed the Judicial Officers of the subordinate judiciary, such appointments cannot be in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice does not have an unfettered power which may be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 135 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

23. According to him, the list was manipulated to give Abdul Hoque, one of the private respondents in the writ petition, an appointment order. He submitted that although the private respondent belongs to a reserved category, he was included as a successful candidate. This was done by considering the person who stood first in the merit list as a general category candidate, thereby making one reserved vacancy available and depriving a person from the general category of an appointment. To counter this argument, Mr. Kar relied on Samta Aandolan Samity & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors reported in (2014) 14 SCC 745 where the Supreme Court after considering the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhaney vs. Union of India reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 held that persons belonging to the reserved category who are selected in the open competition on the basis of their own merit, have a right to be included in the general list/unreserved category and not to be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste. Thus, while calculating the limit of 50 per cent reservation, candidates belonging to reserved categories who have found their place on the basis of their merit competing with general candidates are not to be taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991

In the case of State of Orissa & Anr vs. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give a right of appointment. The candidate who is not appointed though his name is on the select list cannot claim that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment, at the best, is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and no vested right of appointment is created. The Court observed that the select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1160 - L M Sharma - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Rajkishore Nanda & Ors Etc. Etc on 3 June, 2010

In the case of State of Orissa & Anr vs. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier view in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give a right of appointment. The candidate who is not appointed though his name is on the select list cannot claim that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment, at the best, is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and no vested right of appointment is created. The Court observed that the select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 238 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1