Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.35 seconds)Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995
4. Mr. Basu Mallick, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned
judge erred in the exercise of jurisdiction by making the impugned direction.
According to him the recruitment process had commenced in 2009 whereas the writ
petitioners' names were registered with the relevant employment exchange as
'Exempted Category' candidates only in the year 2010 and, therefore, they could not
have derived any benefit of being 'exempted category' candidates in connection with
such recruitment process. It was also submitted by him that even if the private
respondent had been appointed despite the fact of his name having been registered
with the employment exchange as an 'exempted category' candidate after the
recruitment process had commenced, there could be no negative application of Article
14 of the Constitution so as to perpetuate an illegality. Reliance was placed by Mr.
Basu Mallick on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 705
(Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh) and AIR 2014 SC 746 (Basawaraj v. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer) to persuade us interfere with the judgment and
order under challenge.
Basawaraj vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 May, 2008
4. Mr. Basu Mallick, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the learned
judge erred in the exercise of jurisdiction by making the impugned direction.
According to him the recruitment process had commenced in 2009 whereas the writ
petitioners' names were registered with the relevant employment exchange as
'Exempted Category' candidates only in the year 2010 and, therefore, they could not
have derived any benefit of being 'exempted category' candidates in connection with
such recruitment process. It was also submitted by him that even if the private
respondent had been appointed despite the fact of his name having been registered
with the employment exchange as an 'exempted category' candidate after the
recruitment process had commenced, there could be no negative application of Article
14 of the Constitution so as to perpetuate an illegality. Reliance was placed by Mr.
Basu Mallick on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 705
(Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh) and AIR 2014 SC 746 (Basawaraj v. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer) to persuade us interfere with the judgment and
order under challenge.
Surya Kant Kadam vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 16 January, 2001
5. Per contra, Mr. Giri, learned advocate for the writ petitioners contended that although
the Council had initiated the recruitment process in 2009, it had invited further
applications by issuing advertisements in the year 2010 and the writ petitioners
having responded to the same by submitting necessary applications together with the
necessary land-loser certificates as well as the requisite identity cards issued by the
relevant employment exchange, the council acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution in denying the writ petitioners' appointment on the posts of primary
school teacher. The decision reported in (2002) 9 SCC 445 (Surya Kant Kadam v.
State of Karnataka) was referred to in support of the proposition that in the matter of
appointment/promotion, there is no scope for discrimination. He, accordingly,
submitted that the judgment and order under challenge does not deserve interference
and be upheld.
Ashok Kumar Sharma And Anr. vs Chander Shekher And Anr. on 18 December, 1992
8. The Supreme Court in its decision reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 (Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. Chander Shekhar) while considering the question of determination of the
relevant date for eligibility laid down as follows:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1