Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.23 seconds)
Biplab Ranjan Bose vs Public Service Commission on 10 September, 2009 cites

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

The gist of the argument advanced by Mr. Prabal Mukherjee is that though maintenance of time schedule is mandatory and any deviation or variation is required to be ratified from the Supreme Court, as directed in the decision of Malik Mazhar Sultan's case, there had been no attempt to adhere to the time schedule. The petitioners sought for enforcement of their right of being considered for appointment in West Bengal Judicial Service in the vacancies that arose after publication of the advertisement being No. 4/2007 dated February 17, 2007 till the expiry of the validity of the select list/merit list made and published on March 19, 2008/March 23, 2008 according to their rank in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution and action based on legitimate expectation. The declaration had also been sought as to the period of validity of the 'select list' in absence of available provision in the Rules. It was also submitted that in view of issuance of advertisement on May 3, 2008, there could be no scope for any controversy as to the availability of vacancy and as such, the respondents were estopped from initiating recruitment process since the petitioners, who are select listed candidates have pre-existing right to be considered for appointment in all existing vacancies/available vacant posts according to their ranking on merit, till the period of validity of the select list is exhausted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 310 - C K Thakker - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Jagdish Chopra on 30 August, 2007

Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chopra (Supra), it was submitted that a panel/merit list should ordinarily be valid for one year if the rules are silent on this point. Mr. Prabal Mukherjee also invited attention of the Court to the West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004 and the various provisions therein - particularly Rule 9.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 60 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Virender S. Hooda & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 1999

'The law operating in the field in this behalf is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Only because the name of a person appears in the select list, the same by itself may not be a ground for offering him an appointment. A person in the select list does not have any legal right in this behalf. The selectees do not have any legal right of appointment subject, inter alia, to bona fide action on the part of the State. Whereas the selectee as such has no legal right and the superior Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on the part of the employer. Each case, therefore, must be considered on its own merit.' Though reference was made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case between Virender S. Hooda & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., as reported in (1999) 3 SCC 696, I do not think that the decision in the said case has any manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 128 - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Anr vs Bal Mukund Sah & Ors on 14 March, 2000

Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, appearing with Ms. Debjani Sahu, as learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 22704(W) of 2008, submitted that recommendation of the High Court under Article 233(2) and consultation with High Court under Article 234 are sine qua non for direct recruitment of District Judges at the apex level and other Judicial Officers at the base level respectively of the State Judicial Service. Reference was made to the decision in the case between State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Sah & Ors., as reported in (2004) 4 SCC 640. It was contended that judicial service does not come within the ambit of Article 309 so as to clothe the Legislature with the power to legislate in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 108 - Cited by 92 - R P Sethi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next