Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Mr. Mane Bandu Gangadhar vs Agricultural Scientists Recruitment ... on 2 April, 2012 cites

Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs The Chancellor, Sambalpur University & ... on 12 September, 2001

24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post. Learned counsel for the applicants further cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 8 SCC 532 Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v Chancellor, Sambalpur University & others. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

J. Rangaswamy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 28 April, 1995

22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. Courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualification prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of Constitution, statute and Rules. [See J. Rangaswamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh  (1990) 1 SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General  (2003) 2 SCC 632]. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or Statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the rule-making authority or the appointing authority may prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for recruitment, and the courts and tribunals cannot prescribe the qualification. In the present case, the respondents had prescribed the minimum qualification for the post and the mode of selection, and we cannot prescribe and hold that the minimum qualifications which have been prescribed in the notification were not justified and the specialization was required in Livestock Product Technology only for the post in the major discipline of Animal Product Technology, sub-discipline Livestock Product Technology. Masters degree in Veterinary Science/Animal Science was the minimum qualification prescribed by the respondents for selection, and the respondents 4 and 5 were also possessing the minimum requisite qualification, and they were entitled to participate in the selection.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002

22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. Courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualification prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of Constitution, statute and Rules. [See J. Rangaswamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh  (1990) 1 SCC 288 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General  (2003) 2 SCC 632]. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or Statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the rule-making authority or the appointing authority may prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for recruitment, and the courts and tribunals cannot prescribe the qualification. In the present case, the respondents had prescribed the minimum qualification for the post and the mode of selection, and we cannot prescribe and hold that the minimum qualifications which have been prescribed in the notification were not justified and the specialization was required in Livestock Product Technology only for the post in the major discipline of Animal Product Technology, sub-discipline Livestock Product Technology. Masters degree in Veterinary Science/Animal Science was the minimum qualification prescribed by the respondents for selection, and the respondents 4 and 5 were also possessing the minimum requisite qualification, and they were entitled to participate in the selection.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 558 - D Raju - Full Document
1