Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.66 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 234 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The High Court Of Kerala vs Reshma A. And Ors. Etc. on 11 January, 2021
55. By way of last minute effort, Mr. Lall, learned
Advocate for the High Court has submitted before this Court that
the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench in Swati Chaturvedi
(supra) is per incuriam because the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Reshma A. (supra) was not cited. I
do not find any reason to get impressed with the plea.
Rakhi Ray & Ors vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2010
56. In the present case, the petitioner and those in the
combined merit list/select list are duly qualified candidates. The
vacancies which are required to be filled up are neither additional
nor future vacancies, therefore, the views expressed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rakhi Ray (supra) and other similar line of
cases were in a completely different facts situation. This plea of
Mr. Lall is, thus, also liable to be rejected.
Hirandra Kumar vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 29 January, 2019
8. Hirandra Kumar v. High Court of Allahabad, (2020) 17 SCC 410 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 254
Patna High Court CWJC No.7751 of 2020 dt. 09-02-2022
40/53
obtained 125.4 marks and since the marks of the petitioner were
125.2, therefore, the High Court decided not to reduce the merit
as against the last candidate who had been selected. The said
stand of the Patna High Court was challenged by the petitioner
with reference to the Recruitment Rules and particularly the
Rule as published in the advertisement saying that "a candidate
will qualify for appointment if the candidate secures at least
45% marks in each theory paper and 50% in aggregate, in
written test (theory paper) and viva-voce, taken together."
Competent Authority vs Barangore Jute Factory & Ors on 22 November, 2005
Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory, reported in
(2005) 13 SCC 477 followed in the case of Special Agricultural
Produce Market Committee For Fruits and Vegetables,
Golimangla Vs. N. Krishnappa and Others. reported in (2017)
13 SCC 239. In the present case I have noticed that it is in the
larger interest of strengthening the judicial system that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has issued general directions for filling up the
vacancies. The whole endeavour of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
to ensure that all the existing vacant post are filled up. I am thus,
inclined to mould the relief in the present case by directing the
State respondents to fill up all the posts lying vacant due to non-
joining of the recommended candidates and consider the case of
the petitioner as well as others who are above the petitioner in the
combined merit list/select list against the Advertisement No.06 of
2018.