Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 233 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramesh Kumar vs High Court Of Delhi & Anr on 1 February, 2010
The ratio decidendi of the above case
case-law unequivocally
reflects
eflects that where the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
are silent,, as regards the manner in which the merit and suitability would be
determined, administrative instructions can well supplement the Rules in that
regard. Such an eventuality
eventuality should not be one where the Rules have made a
specific provision in which event the administrative instructions cannot
transgress a Rule which has been made in pursuance of the power conferred
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In other wor
words,
ds, the
appropriate concerned authority cannot amend or supersede a statutory Rule
by administrative actions. However, it is open to it
it, to issue required
instructions to fill up the gaps and supplement the Rules
instructions, Rules, where they are
silent on any particular point. Such instructions have a binding force
provided they are subservient to the statutory provision and are not in
violation thereof. It is, therefore, a jurisprudential canon that where the
principal statutory provision(s)
provision and the extant regulatory framework
governing the selection process are silent on a particular aspect thereof, the
High Court, in the exercise of its administrative authority as the appointing
body, is imbued with the inherent power to supplement such def
deficiencies.
Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 28 March, 2023
At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Tajvir Singh Sodi
and others vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and others 2023(3) SCR
714, relevant whereof reads as under:
Jeet Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2000
In Jeet
Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1979(1) SLR 604
604,, the question fell
for consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In para 8 of the
judgment
udgment it has been held that those petitioners lacked locus standi to file
a petition because they were not qualified for promotion and they did not
have any right for promotion prior for the selected candidate nor they
could succeed in their claim."
Bhanu Pratap vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 August, 2011
In the said judgment
this Court has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a
particular qualification
ualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the
same then it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the
appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even
better qualifications than the appointee or appo
appointees
intees but who had not
applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications
mentioned in the advertisement.
Umrao Singh vs Punjabi University, Patiala, & Ors on 6 December, 2005
In the case of Umrao Singh Vs. Punjabi University, Patiala and
Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 365 this Court while dealing with the
power of Selection Committee for relaxation of norms held thus: -
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983
22 of 24
::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2025 04:43:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036129-DB
CWP-17640
17640-2021 23
The ratio decidendi of the above case law - unequivocally
shows that the Apex Court has proscribed the exercise of power for rounding
off the marks of a candidate so as to enable him to be selected unless such
power exists,
exists, expressly. When the words of statute are clear, plain or
unambiguous, i.e. the same are susceptible to only one meaning, a Court of
law is bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences
flowing therefrom, since the statute speaks for itself. This canon of law,
would apply with even more fervour, to a plea seeking grant of grace marks.