Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Sunil Y Patil vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 7 January, 2026 cites

Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke And Ors. vs Dr. B.S. Mahajan And Ors. on 6 December, 1989

"In the instant case, as would be seen from the perusal of the impugned order, the selection of the appellants has been quashed by the Tribunal by itself scrutinizing the comparative merits of the candidates and fitness for the post as if the Tribunal was sitting as an appellate authority over the selection committee. The selection of the candidates was not quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in arrogating to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the fitness and suitability for appointment. That was the function of the selection committee. The observation of this Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke's case (supra) are squarely attracted to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 334 - P B Sawant - Full Document

National Institute Of Mental Health & ... vs Dr. K. Kalyana Raman And Others on 28 November, 1991

"9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the first respondent. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, AIR 1992 SC 1806. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court, the said decision laid down the proposition that the function of the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is under no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record the reasons. This Court then observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 172 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1