Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.81 seconds)
Dr. M.K. Gaur And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 26 April, 2002 cites

Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 10 May, 1994

In Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (1), the Apex Court has explained the scope and extent of reserve list and as to how it is to operate in service jurisprudence and held that a waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the last selected candidate. Usually it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For instance, if an exami-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 220 - R M Sahai - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Another vs Madan Mohan Singh And Others on 13 October, 1993

In the case reported in State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. (2), a question arose whether after appointment of 32 candidates as per advertisement more persons could be appointed from waiting list. The Supreme Court held that when 32 advertised vacancies were filled up, the process of selection of 32 vacancies got existed and came to an end. If the same list has to be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up of other vacancies, it would amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would have become eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and the selection process. To fill up other vacancies a fresh advertisement has to be issued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board And ... on 7 May, 1996

In Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board (4), the Apex Court has laid down the law that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for further vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for a certain number of posts only, the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. It is further said that the State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on post falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that loo by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Thus, the verdict of the Supreme Court clearly points out that the advertised vacancies only can be filled up from the select list or the reserve list and it is only in the exceptional circumstances the normal rule can be deviated for the reasons given and the appointments can be given on the post which fell vacant after the advertisement was issued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 935 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

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

In Virender S. Hooda's case (supra) the facts as noticed by the Supreme Court were that the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised for recruitment to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other allied services which included 12 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch), 7 in general and 5 in reserved category. The Haryana Public Service Commission held the written examination for the year 1991 and interviewed the candidates who passed the written examination is May, 1992 and the final result was published in June, 1992. Thereafter the candidates whose names were recommended by the Public Service Commission for filling of the advertised vacancies were given appointments. Further 9 vacancies became available within six months of the receipt of recommendation. The appellants who were in reserve list, claimed consideration of their names for appointment to those posts. Thus, the vacancies which became available subsequently were claimed to be filled in from the reserve list. The Apex Court upheld the claim of the appellants on the basis of Circular issued on 22.3.1957 read with circular dated 26.5.1972 by the Government, wherein it was said that when such vacancies arise within six months from the receipt of recommendation made by the Commission they have to be filled up out of the waiting list maintained by the Commission. The Circulars authorise the government to fill up the vacancies from the reserve/waiting list when those vacancies arise within the period of six months from the date of previous selection. The decision of the Court is based on the Circular issued by the Government.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 128 - Full Document

Dwarka Prasad vs Dwarka Das Saraf on 11 August, 1975

13. It is apparent from first part of Rule 20 that select list for required number of candidates for appointment under Rule 16, is prepared by the Commission. Proviso to this Rule permits the Commission to prepare reserve list to be operated, if requisition is made by the Govt., from the reserve list during its existence. The language of proviso even if general, is normally to be construed in relation to the subject matter covered by the Rule to which the proviso so appended. A proviso does not travel beyond the provision to which it is a proviso as held in Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Safar (8) and Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa (9).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 207 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd vs Audrey D'Costa & Anr on 26 March, 1987

13. It is apparent from first part of Rule 20 that select list for required number of candidates for appointment under Rule 16, is prepared by the Commission. Proviso to this Rule permits the Commission to prepare reserve list to be operated, if requisition is made by the Govt., from the reserve list during its existence. The language of proviso even if general, is normally to be construed in relation to the subject matter covered by the Rule to which the proviso so appended. A proviso does not travel beyond the provision to which it is a proviso as held in Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Safar (8) and Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa (9).
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 56 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

M/S. Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... on 20 September, 1955

In Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (10), at page 769 it was observed that it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 277 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Kailash Nath Etc on 22 November, 1988

In State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath (11), the Apex Court dealt with Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules which reserves to the Government the right to withhold or withdraw a pension or part of it or to order recovery from it if the pensioner is subsequently found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service in a departmental or judicial proceeding. There is a proviso to the rule which says "No such judicial proceeding if not instituted while the officer was in service - shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution". The Apex Court held that the proviso had to be read as an exception to the main provision meaning that if the judicial proceeding is not instituted within the period mentioned in the proviso, the Government will not have the right to withhold or withdraw the pension and that the proviso does not provide a general embargo on the prosecution of the officer after the expiry of that period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 69 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Shiv Prakash Maheshwari vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 8 October, 2001

16. As soon as the selection of candidates of the advertised vacancies culminates into giving of appointments on the vacancies advertised, the reserve list comes to an end. It revives only in the eventuality of the select list becoming re-operative on account of non-joining of the selected candidates or their leaving the post soon after joining during the existence of reserve list, which has life of its own under the Rule. On the face of proposition of law propounded by Apex Court, that a reserve list prepared in an examination conducted by the commission does not constitute a source of recruitment, it is operative only in contingency that if any of the selected candidate does not join then the person from reserve list may be pushed up and appointed in the vacancies so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the government may as a matter of policy decision pick up the persons in order of merit from the reserve/waiting list and that the selection process comes to an end after the candidates from advertised vacancies are appointed. We find ourselves in difficulty adhering to the view taken by the Division Bench in Shiv Prakash Maheshwari's case (supra) that the reserve list prepared can be used as a separate and independent source for appointment. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the Government is restrained from making appointments beyond the select list requires any interference. Special appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - K S Rathore - Full Document
1