Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.40 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Karn Singh Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 September, 2022
(two Judges Bench) and Karn Singh Yadav (supra.)
Divya vs Union Of India on 9 October, 2023
In the case of Divya (Supra.), the claim of one of the appellants was
that he was in possession of the requisite Income & Asset Certificate
(IA &C) dated 11.10.2021 in the prescribed format but by mistake he
uploaded the certificate in online Detailed Application Form-I on the same
day for financial year 2021-22 instead of financial year 2020-21. Their
Lordships did not accept the said claim of the appellants and observed at
para 86 as under: -
Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others vs Chander Shekhar & Another on 10 March, 1997
In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (Supra.), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that if applications are invited prescribing a particular date
as the last date for filing the same, the eligibility of the candidates shall
have to be judged with reference to that date alone. It has further been
held that a person, who acquires the required qualification subsequent to
prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or
notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a
representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such
representation who cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this
proposition is that if it was known that the persons who obtained the
qualification after the prescribed date, but before the date of interview
would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed
62
2026:JHHC:13599-DB
persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had
applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed
qualification by the cut-off date, they could not be treated on a
preferential basis.
Sakshi Arha vs The Rajasthan High Court on 18 May, 2023
In the case of Sakshi Arya (supra), the fact was that an advertisement
inviting applications for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre was
published which was silent on the aspect of the last date of issuance of
the concerned certificates for each reserved category. The Appellants in
all the appeals belonged to different reserved categories and they had
successfully cleared their preliminary examination, followed by mains
examination, as per the requirements of marks in their respective
categories. However, as none of those candidates had their certificates
issued as per the date specified in the subsequent notice, their names
were not included in the list of the candidates called for interview.
Satyajit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2022
44. The appellants of L.P.A No. 115 of 2020 (arising out of the order dated
20.12.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2950 of 2019) filled up their online
application forms for the said advertised posts. They appeared in the
written examination and after passing the said examination, they were
called for document verification on 11.01.2019. The final state wise
result/merit list for the said examination was published in compliance of
the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyajit Kumar Vs.
The State of Jharkhand reported in (2022) 18 SCC 284 in which the
appellants were not declared successful as they secured lesser marks
than that of the last selected candidate under "general category".