Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)
Priyanka Chauhan D/O Dr. Bharat Veer ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2023 cites

Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad on 5 December, 2018

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad (supra), it can be safely concluded that a candidate for recruitment to any post must possess the requisite qualification statutorily prescribed and the Court exercising the power of judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of prescribed qualification. The equivalence of qualification is in exclusive domain of the recruiting authority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 320 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Mohammad Shujat, Ali & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1974

(vi) It is trite law that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of judicial review is not required to interfere with, in such realm and jurisdiction of the recruitment agency and the appointing authority in respect of deciding the requisite and eligible qualification of candidates for appointment for the post in question as per Rules and on the basis of opinion of Expert Committee. Unless it is not established and proved that the decision of the State Government and RPSC to rely upon such report of Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017 is based on some extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated by malafides in any manner, this Court is not required to exercise its power of judicial review in this regard. This Court finds support to reject the challenge to the report of Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017 so also to letter dated 26.05.2017, on the basis of judgment of Supreme Court, delivered in case of Mohd. Shujat Ali Vs. Union of India [1974 AIR 1631]. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standard, and, fulfilled attainments of such qualification and where the decision of the Government is based on recommendations of an expert body, which possess the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such function, this Court, uninformed by relevant data and (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29095] (19 of 27) [CW-122/2023] unaided by the technical insights necessary for parties of determining equivalence would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government. It is only where the decision of Government is shown to be based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated by malafies or irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong that the Court would reach out its lethal area and strike down the decision of the Government.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 296 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ity Patni vs University Of Rajasthan And Ors on 7 January, 2019

In the present case, the report of Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017, stands against petitioners and that report has been followed by respondents, to reject the candidature of petitioners treating their qualification of MBA and UGC-NET in subject Management as ineligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Business Administration). The decision of the State and RPSC, therefore, have concurrence with the view of learned Single Judge expressed in case of Ity Patni (supra) and Vishnu Bawaree (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29095] (24 of 27) [CW-122/2023] (supra) as also observations of the Division Bench in case of Vishnu Bawaree, and in that view of matter, respondents cannot be directed to treat petitioners eligible, for appointment on the post in question on the basis of qualification of MBA and thus, candidature of petitioners has rightly been rejected as not eligible for the post in question.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Sharma - Full Document

Vishnu Bawaree S/O Sajjan Lal Bawaree vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 July, 2021

In another case of Vishu Bawaree (supra), the petitioner filed writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan for appointment on the post of Lecturer in subject EAFM. The eligibility for the post was a post graduate (NET/SLET/SET or a Ph.D. in lieu thereof in the subject concerned. Petitioner was in possession of the degree of MBA. The Court opined that whether both qualifications are equivalent, as contended by petitioner is not for this to address and adjudicate, but the issue lies in the domain expertise of the concerned academic experts. The qualification of MBA was not held as eligible qualification for the post of Lecturer in EAFM. The writ petition was dismissed. The issue traveled to the Division Bench as petitioner preferred DB (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29095] (21 of 27) [CW-122/2023] SAW No.1613/2018.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mali Ram Hindala S/O Chatra Ram Hindala vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 December, 2021

This Court finds that the contention of counsel for petitioner is not acceptable and placing reliance upon the judgment of Mali Ram Hindala (supra) is also misplaced. For the applicability of UGC Regulations, 2018 to the present recruitment. In that judgment, the Division Bench considered the applicability of UGC Regulations, 2018 in respect of post of Assistant Professor (Botany, Zoology and Physics) pursuant to present recruitment advertisement dated 18.12.2020 and observed that the State was bound to follow the eligibility criteria prescribed by the UGC, in the present recruitment process, which was initiated thereafter, however, while considering the grant of relief to petitioners, the Division Bench has held and observed in the judgment as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Premraj Meena Son Of Shri Kailash Chand ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 February, 2023

(iv) Petitioners have sought to challenge the report of Expert Committee dated 15.03.2017 as also the letter dated 26.05.2017, on the basis of previous report of Expert Committee dated 07.06.2012 (Ann-15). The previous report of Expert Committee was comprising of three members was constituted by the RPSC, in the middle of process of recruitment of College Lecturers in Business Administration pursuant to advertisement dated 21.09.2010 and then the RPSC itself issued corrigendum dated 29.10.2012, treating the MBA degree holders as eligible and they were also permitted to apply. Such corrigendum dated 29.10.2012 came to be challenged by way of filing writ petition (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 09:07:02 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:29095] (17 of 27) [CW-122/2023] No.18837/2012 titled Kailash Chand Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan, wherein the High Court did not interfere with and dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 27.04.2013, in the backdrop of facts that such exercise was made by the RPSC to fill all advertised posts, since the eligible candidates after excluding the MBA degree holders were not found sufficient in number.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Bansal - Full Document
1