Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.10 seconds)
Sruthi N.D vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2025 cites

Basil Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2023

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OA(EKM) 53/2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2024 IN OP (KAT) 473/2023 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.01.2024 IN OA (EKM) 53/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMO FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 TO ADOPT THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA(EKM) 1541 OF 2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE REPLY FILED BY ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS NO. 8 AND 9 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION MEMO FILED BY THE LEGAL RETAINER TO THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS R5 AND R6 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2024 IN BASIL THOMAS V. STATE OF KERALA, 2024 : KER: 47060 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 29.08.2024 IN OA (EKM) 53/2024 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING MINUTES DATED 17.05.2024 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. P3/1825/2020 DATED 02.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR TO THE DIRECTOR Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. C4/16892/20/DTE DATED 03.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION(L) DEPARTMENT O.P. (KAT) Nos. 81/2024 & Con. Cases; 359/2024 & Con. Cases; 140/2023 & Con. Cases; & W.A.No.1614/2022
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - D Ramachandran - Full Document

Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs Sandeep Shriram Warade on 3 May, 2019

If such a determination is made, the scope for judicial review is necessarily limited. The Apex Court in Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. v. Anita Puri (Dr) [(1996) 6 SCC 282], Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade [(2019) 6 SCC 362] and Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar (Dr) [(1994) 1 SCC 169], ruled that it is the prerogative of the employer/recruiting agency to satisfy with the qualification prescribed for the post and the Court shall not substitute the views of the employer/recruiting agency. As we have already emphasised, the timing of the decision on qualification is crucial. In the absence of a prior determination by the Government or the PSC regarding the sufficiency of a qualification before the issuance of the notification, it would not be open to the Tribunal or this Court to direct that a particular qualification be accepted as sufficient on the ground that it presupposes the prescribed lower qualification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 94 - N Sinha - Full Document

The Chancellor And Anr. vs Dr Bijayananda Kar And Ors. on 4 November, 1993

If such a determination is made, the scope for judicial review is necessarily limited. The Apex Court in Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. v. Anita Puri (Dr) [(1996) 6 SCC 282], Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade [(2019) 6 SCC 362] and Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar (Dr) [(1994) 1 SCC 169], ruled that it is the prerogative of the employer/recruiting agency to satisfy with the qualification prescribed for the post and the Court shall not substitute the views of the employer/recruiting agency. As we have already emphasised, the timing of the decision on qualification is crucial. In the absence of a prior determination by the Government or the PSC regarding the sufficiency of a qualification before the issuance of the notification, it would not be open to the Tribunal or this Court to direct that a particular qualification be accepted as sufficient on the ground that it presupposes the prescribed lower qualification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 99 - K Singh - Full Document

Ajith K. vs Aneesh K.S. on 21 August, 2019

-:296:- 2025:KER:53298 on the judgment in Ajith K. and Others v. Aneesh K. S. and Others [2019 KHC 6830] is legally unsustainable. The Apex Court in the above judgment noted that apart from the Government, the PSC also had not carried out any exercise to hold that a higher degree referred to therein necessarily presupposes the prescribed qualification (See paragraph 16 of the above judgment). Therefore, if the competent body is of the opinion that a higher qualification is to be treated as a sufficient qualification, such a decision cannot be interfered with lightly without reference to the decision-making process of such a body.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next