Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.69 seconds)
Union Of India vs G. Kiran on 6 January, 2026 cites

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

49. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC, who had taken relaxation of age, were not entitled to be migrated to the unreserved vacancies; the State of Rajasthan has migrated such candidates who have taken concession of age against the unreserved vacancies which resulted displacement of a large number of candidates who were entitled to be selected against the unreserved category vacancies. The candidates belonging to unreserved category who could not be appointed due to migration of candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC were clearly entitled for appointment which was denied to them on the basis of the above illegal interpretation put by the State. We, however, also take notice of the fact that the reserved category candidates who had taken benefit of age relaxation and were migrated on the unreserved category candidates, are working for more than last five years. The reserved category candidates who were appointed on migration against unreserved vacancies are not at fault in any manner. Hence, we are of the opinion that SC/ST/BC candidates who have been so migrated in reserved vacancies and appointed, should not be displaced and allowed to continue in respective posts. On the other hand, the unreserved candidates who could not be appointed due to the above illegal migration are also entitled for appointment as per their merit. The equities have to be adjusted by this Court.” (emphasis supplied) 27 In the said case, this Court while affirming the view taken in Deepa E.V. (Supra), held that reserved category candidates who had availed corresponding relaxations, could not be considered on general/unreserved vacancies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 125 - R Banumathi - Full Document

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

33. Accordingly, we hold as the respondents-writ petitioners had availed concession of age for participating in the recruitment process, in the teeth of office memorandum dated 01.07.1998, the High Court was wrong in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) and permitting them to be considered for appointment in the unreserved category. Consequently, we set aside the common impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 and order dated 26.02.2019 and allow the appeals. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 368 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

The Learned Single Judge Placing ... vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 11 May, 2015

In the instant case, the State Government in supersession of its earlier policy decision regarding treatment to be given to the candidates belonging to reserved category who are selected against unreserved category vacancies, issued directives for guidance to the appointing 26 authorities vide the Circular dated 11-5-2011 that neither changed the eligibility criteria seeking employment nor manner and method of selection of suitable candidates and in our considered view, the Circular dated 11-5-2011 did not change rules of the game after the game is played or process of selection is initiated as observed by the learned Single Judge [Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1182] , [Manish Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 4100] but such policy decisions are always within realm of judicial review and this is what the Court considered and examined policy decision of the Government impugned.” xxx xxx xxx
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - A Rastogi - Full Document

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

In Ajithkumar P. (Supra), this Court was considering a factual situation wherein the reserved category candidate had availed relaxation in the preliminary examination, however, found that the said Preliminary Examination was not having any statutory 31 basis. Therefore, this judgement is also distinguishable on facts and will not come to rescue to the case of Respondent No. 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Vikas Sankhala & Ors Etc vs Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors Etc on 18 October, 2016

As far as Vikas Sankhala (Supra) is concerned, it involved recruitment to the post of teachers whereby relaxation in minimum pass marks in Teachers Eligibility Test to reserved category candidates was granted by state government in following manner – a. 10% to persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/SBC/General-Women b. 15% to all women of SC/ST/OBC/SBC and widowed /divorced women c. 20% to persons covered under PwD Various candidates belonging to general category candidates came before this Court in Appeal on the ground that minimum qualifying marks with respect to TET was 60% and any relaxation thereto meant availing relaxation pursuant to reservation and thus, migration of such candidates who took benefit of above indicated relaxations to the unreserved/general vacancies was impermissible. The said appeals were allowed with following observations – “80. Having regard to the respective submissions noted above, first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether 32 relaxation in TET pass marks would amount to concession in the recruitment process. The High Court has held to be so on the premise that Para 9(a) dealing with such relaxation in TET marks forms part of the document which relates to the recruitment procedure. It is difficult to accept this rationale or analogy. Passing of TET examination is a condition of eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary qualification without which a candidate is not eligible to be considered for appointment. This was clearly mentioned in the Guidelines/Notification dated 11-2-2011. These Guidelines pertain to conducting of TET; basic features whereof have already been pointed out above. Even Para 9 which provides for concessions that can be given to certain reserved categories deals with “qualifying marks” that is to be obtained in TET examination. Thus, a person who passes TET examination becomes eligible to participate in the selection process as and when such selection process for filling up of the posts of primary teachers is to be undertaken by the State. On the other hand, when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the method for appointment of teachers is altogether different. Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained under different heads. One of the heads is “marks in TET”. So far as this head is concerned, 20% of the marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to each candidate. Therefore, those reserved category candidates who secured lesser marks in TET would naturally get less marks under this head. We would like to demonstrate it with an example: Suppose a reserved category candidate obtains 53 marks in TET, he is treated as having qualified TET. However, when he is considered for selection to the post of primary teacher, in respect of allocation of marks he will get 20% marks for TET. As against him, a general candidate who secures 70 marks in TET shall be awarded 14 marks in recruitment process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks reserved category candidate has not got any advantage while considering his candidature for the post. On the contrary, “level-playing field” is maintained whereby a person securing 33 higher marks in TET, whether belonging to general category or reserved category, is allocated higher marks in respect of 20% of TET marks. Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in observing that concession was given in the recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in TET.” (emphasis supplied) Therefore, it is clear that the relaxations in TET marks were not considered to be a concession. For this reason, the said judgement is also distinguishable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 130 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana vs Gujrat Public Service Commission And ... on 4 July, 2019

32. Similarly, this court in Niravkumar Dilipbhai (Supra) while considering an identical factual situation involving a circular barring consideration of reserved category candidates on unreserved posts observed as under – “22. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision empowering the State to make any provision or reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the service under the State. It is purely a matter of discretion of the State Government to formulate a policy for concession, exemption, preference or relaxation either conditionally or unconditionally in favour of the backward classes of citizens. The reservation being the enabling provision, the manner and the extent to which reservation is provided has to be spelled out from the orders issued by the Government from time to time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 75 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

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

31. We also find merit in the reliance placed by the Appellant on the decision in Gaurav Pradhan (Supra). In that case, the post in question was of Police Constables and Sub-Inspectors of Police and the recruitment process was of the year 2010. Vide an earlier circular dated 24.06.2008, it was provided that the members of SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be counted against them, in case they have not taken any concession (like that of age, etc.) available to them other than that relating to payment of examination fees in case of direct recruitment. Thereafter, vide a circular dated 11.05.2011, without superseding earlier circular of 2008, it was provided that if a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/ST, irrespective of whether they have availed of or not any of the special concession which are available to them, secures more marks than the marks obtained by last unreserved category candidate who is selected, such a candidate belonging to 24 aforementioned categories shall be counted against unreserved category vacancies and not reserved vacancies. On filing writ petitions before High Court by various general category candidates, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same which came to be confirmed with certain modifications by the Division Bench. While allowing the appeals, this Court observed thus:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 94 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sajib Roy on 23 January, 2020

33. Very recently in Sajib Roy (Supra), this court had the occasion to deal with a similar factual matrix as observed hereunder– “32. On an analysis of the aforecited cases, we summarise as follows: Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of each case. That is to say, in the event there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next