Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.73 seconds)
Sanjeet Singh vs High Court Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 May, 2011 cites

Rakhi Ray & Ors vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2010

16. It is to be kept in mind that Rakhi Ray (supra) is a judgment in the context of recruitment in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in Delhi. Advertisement dated 19.5.2007 was issued notifying 20 vacancies. Out of these posts, 13 posts were to be filled up from the general category candidates, 3 from Schedule Cast and 4 from Scheduled Tribes. Appellants Rakhi Ray and others also found place in the merit list but were much below at sl. No.13 After filling up of all 13 vacancies in general W.P. (C) 1435/11, 2317/11,2156/11,1702/11,,1701/11 Page 23 of 32 category, the said persons could not be selected because of lower ranking.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 364 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr on 30 October, 2001

In State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2900, this Court examined the case where only one post was advertised and the candidate whose name appeared at Serial No. 1 in the select list joined the post, but subsequently resigned. The Court W.P. (C) 1435/11, 2317/11,2156/11,1702/11,,1701/11 Page 12 of 32 rejected the contention that post can be filled up offering the appointment to the next candidate in the select list observing as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

Mukul Saikia & Ors vs State Of Assam & Ors on 18 November, 2008

In Mukul Saikia and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 747, this Court dealt with a similar issue and held that "if the requisition and advertisement was only for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint more than the number of posts advertised". The Select List "got exhausted when all the 27 posts were filled". Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed candidates have no right to claim appointment to any vacancy in regard to which selection was not held. The "currency of Select List had expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, the appointments beyond the number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies" and said course is impermissible in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 127 - L S Panta - Full Document

All India Judges' Association And ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 August, 1993

(4)What would be effect of order dated 20.4.2010 passed in All India Judges Association case. As per which the Curt was apprised that it was advertising lesser number of vacancies than available for want of proper court accommodation and infrastructure. Whether that would amount to approval of the action taken by the Court which is precisely the subject matter of the challenge?
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 482 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors on 3 April, 2006

In Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with the delay that occurs in filling up of the vacancies in Subordinate Courts, at all levels. The figures placed before the Court revealed that at that relevant time there was approved strength of 14440 Judges in the Subordinate judiciary of this country as against that as on March, 2006, actual serving Judges were only, 11,682 leaving 2730 posts vacant which had not been filled. The Court felt alarmed by this state of affairs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 310 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 Next