Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)P.U. Joshi & Ors., Union Of India & Ors vs The Accountant General, Ahmedabad, & ... on 19 December, 2002
extracted, is the judgment in the case of P.U.Joshi
(supra) which is reiterated time and again. Therefore,
facts obtaining in the case at hand will have to be
considered on the touchstone of the principles laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of J&K vs Shiv Ram Sharma & Ors on 30 March, 1999
12. Fixing eligibility for a particular
post or even for admission to a course
falls within the exclusive domain of the
legislature/executive and cannot be the
subject-matter of judicial review, unless
found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has
been fixed without keeping in mind the
nature of service, for which appointments
are to be made, or has no rational nexus
with the object(s) sought to be achieved
by the statute. Such eligibility can be
changed even for the purpose of promotion,
unilaterally and the person seeking such
promotion cannot raise the grievance that he
should be governed only by the rules
existing, when he joined service. In the
matter of appointments, the authority
concerned has unfettered powers so far as
the procedural aspects are concerned, but it
must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc.
The court should therefore, refrain from
interfering, unless the appointments so
made, or the rejection of a candidature is
found to have been done at the cost of
"fair play", "good conscience" and
73
"equity". (Vide State of J&K v. Shiv Ram
Sharma [(1999) 3 SCC 653: 1999 SCC (L&S)
801: AIR 1999 SC 2012] and Praveen
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 8 SCC 633:
The Official Liquidator Of M/S Kaizen ... vs Dayanand Madhav Mapuskar And Anr ... on 20 December, 2018
(emphasis supplied)
Subsequently a three Judge Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v.
DAYANAND -reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 has held as
follows:
Chandigarh Admn. Th. Dir. Pub. Instrn vs Usha Kheterpal Waie & Ors on 2 September, 2011
(emphasis supplied)
68
Elaborating interference by Constitutional Courts
insofar as rule making power of the Appointing
Authority, the Apex Court in the case of CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION v. USHA KHETERPAL WAIE -
reported in (2011) 9 SCC 645 has held as follows:
J. Ranga Swamy vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 20 December, 1989
"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. The
courts and tribunals can neither prescribe
the qualifications nor entrench upon the
power of the authority concerned so long
as the qualifications 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 the
Constitution, statute and rules. (See J.
Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. [(1990) 1 SCC
288: 1990 SCC (L&S) 76] and P.U.
Joshi v. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC
632: 2003 SCC (L&S) 191]. In the absence of
69
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."