Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (2.39 seconds)
Vijay Goutam Dabbiru, S/O. Late C.P. ... vs 1.The Honble High Court Of Judicature At ... on 24 October, 2018 cites

Gaurav Pradhan And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 18 August, 2017

31. The decision in Deepa was cited with approval in Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan . In fact, the State of Rajasthan issued a Circular after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. and reiterated the position that candidates belonging to SCs/STs/OBCs who have availed the concession of age are not eligible to be migrated to the unreserved vacancies. Therefore, the Supreme Court held in Gaurav Pradhan that the law laid down in Deepa would hold the field.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 94 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 8 January, 2010

20. The second decision relied upon by Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Rajesh Singh. The question that fell for consideration in Rajesh Singh was whether a reserved category candidate, upon having availed of relaxation in age, besides special relaxations/concessions, can be considered for being selected against unreserved vacancies, in the event of his securing high marks in the selection. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court made a distinction between two types of reserved category candidates viz., (i) those who participated in the process of selection after availing the relaxation in age and (ii) those reserved category candidates who participated in the process of selection after availing special relaxations/ concessions. Insofar as the first category of persons is concerned, the Rajasthan High Court held that those candidates, though belonging to the reserved categories, are entitled to migrate to General/Open category vacancies. The Court held that the second category of persons viz., those reserved category candidates who availed special relaxations/concessions are not entitled to so migrate to the vacancies under the Open/General category. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court sought to draw a distinction between these two categories of persons on the ground that a mere relaxation in age did not tantamount to a relaxed standard of merit, affecting the maintenance of efficiency in administration. As a matter of fact, by the time the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court considered the issue in Rajesh Singh, the Supreme Court has already clinched the issue with regard to relaxation in age, in its decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh .
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 368 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Samta Aandolan Samiti & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 2013

In Samta Aandolan Samiti v. Union of India , the Supreme Court was concerned with admissions to MBBS Course in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The actual issue before the Supreme Court in Samta Aandolan Samiti was whether the meritorious reserved category candidates, admitted to seats available in the open competition, are to be counted within the quota reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 40 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ajithkumar P And Ors vs Remin K R And Ors on 13 October, 2015

27. The next decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is the one in Ajithkumar P. v. Remin K.R. . The case before the Supreme Court in Ajithkumar related to the appointment to the post of Sub Inspectors in the Kerala Police Subordinate Service. Though the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure prescribed a written test followed by practical test, physical efficiency test and oral test for selection, the number of persons who applied was so huge that the Public Service Commission thought fit to conduct a screening test first, for the purpose of shortlisting candidates who could be invited for the written examinations to be conducted as per the Rules. Relaxed eligibility criteria was fixed for various reserved categories, in the screening test. The candidates shortlisted in the screening test, were allowed to participate in a written examination followed by physical efficiency test and oral interview and a final list of candidates was published. The final list came to be challenged on the ground that those candidates who failed to secure the minimum marks fixed for General category candidates in the screening test, but who were declared successful on the basis of the relaxed cut-off marks available for reserved category candidates should not have been accommodated against the General category vacancies. The challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court on the ground that the screening test/preliminary examination conducted by the Public Service Commission for shortlisting the candidates for the main written examination, had no statutory basis and that a relaxation or concession given at the preliminary stage cannot have any relevance in determining the merit of the candidate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Deepa E.V vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 April, 2017

In Deepa E.V. v. Union of India , a candidate belonging to the Other Backward Classes, who participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Laboratory Assistant after obtaining relaxation of the upper age limit, staked a claim for appointment as against a General category vacancy on the ground that she had secured more than the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for General category candidates. No candidate belonging to the General category had secured more than the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for General category candidates. But her claim was rejected on a combined reading of Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules and the proceedings issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. Though the candidate before the Supreme Court placed heavy reliance upon the decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh, the said decision was distinguished on the ground that the decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh was based upon a statutory interpretation to U.P. Act, 1994. In Deepa, the Supreme Court found that there was an express bar for the candidates belonging to SCs/STs/OBCs who have availed relaxation, for being considered for the vacancies kept unreserved for the General category candidates. But the decision in Deepa will be of no avail to the petitioner in this case, since there is no express bar for reserved category candidates who have availed the relaxed eligibility criteria from being considered for vacancies kept unreserved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 125 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next