Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.98 seconds)A.A. Calton vs The Director Of Education & Another on 25 March, 1983
In A.A. Calton v. Director of Education and Anr., , the selection made to the post of Principal of a college was challenged before the High Court by one of the contestants. The High Court by its judgment allowed the writ petition and quashed the selection directing the selection committee to make an appointment in accordance with Section 16-F(4) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Pursuant to the said direction the Director appointed the second respondent which appointment was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. In the special leave petition filed against the order of dismissal, the Apex Court, held:
Y.V. Rangaiah And Ors. vs J. Sreenivasa Rao And Ors. on 24 March, 1983
In Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, , also in a similar situation the Apex Court held:
N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990
In Bevin Katti's case what had been done was to apply a Government order which was issued after the initiation of recruitment process though that Government order itself indicated that for reservations which had already been made the new order would not apply. By applying the new Government Order persons who had been included in the notified select list were excluded. It is in those circumstances, the Supreme Court gave relief to the appellants. But in none of these cases it has been held that where a recruitment process had not been finalised and the recruitment rules are amended prescribing different qualifications for the post, the Government has no power to take a decision not to proceed with the recruitment and to initiate recruitment afresh in accordance with the new Rules".
State Of M.P vs Raghuveer Singh Yadav on 8 August, 1994
The reason is that the technological advancements taking place day in and day out and the computerisation of the various governmental organisations, out of necessity require that the appointees to the various posts in these organisations are armed with knowledge of computer. The changes brought in by the amended rule seem to have taken stock of this changed requirements. In this situation, thrusting on the department a person not armed with this essential qualification who if appointed would not be in a position to discharge the functions required of a person occupying the said post cannot be justified under any circumstance particularly, if the claim for appointment is by a person who has not been appointed as yet and the process of appointment under the old Rules had not been completed. It would be useful in this regard to quote the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Ors., , in a similar situation:
1