Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Dr. Amit Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 July, 2015 cites

Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors vs S. Gopalakrishnan on 12 December, 2000

24. The two authorities of the Coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court, one relied upon by each of the learned opposing counsels, of their own would not provide useful key for resolving the question under consideration. It is, however, noticed that in both the cases reference has been made to earlier three-Judge Bench decisions in Anil Kumar Gupta and S. Suresh Nathan. Besides, it is important to notice that the Raghumani Singhs case relates to appointment by promotion and the Indian Airlines Case relates to appointment by direct recruitment. This is the distinguishing feature if reliance is to be placed on these authorities alone and in that authority rendered in Indian Airlines shall prevail in the case on hand for the reason that it too relates to a case of direct recruitment. A more detailed survey of the case law by the learned counsels would have assisted the Court in a better way particularly when no authority of this Court on the point has been cited at bar. An effort, therefore, has been made to survey and examine case law on the point instead of restricting reliance to the two authorities relied upon by learned counsels for the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors vs Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors on 4 April, 2000

From a reading of the decisions rendered by this Court, one thing is clear to us that the decisions in N. Suresh Nathan, M.B. Joshi, D. Stephen Joseph, Anil Kumar Gupta, A.K. Raghumani Singh and Indian Airlines Ltd. (supra), are based on the interpretation of the respective rules called in question, giving meaning to the words used in the context of the entire scheme governing service conditions and the facts involved in each case and it cannot be said that the decisions rendered by this Court after the decision of N. Suresh Nathan's case, have taken a different view than what has been decided in N. Suresh Nathan's case. Thus, we are required to decide the matter on the basis of the entire scheme of the rules, the facts and circumstances at the relevant time and the rules called in question before us, independently giving meaning to the words, the principle involved and the past practice, if 27 any, which is in consonance with the interpretation given by us to the rule. If we find that two views are possible after interpreting the rule, then the rule would be interpreted keeping with the practice followed in the Department for a long time and thus the practice practically acquired status of rule in the Department.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - R Pal - Full Document

Mrs. Kunda S. Kadam vs Dr. K.K. Soman And Ors. on 13 February, 1980

11. Before taking up the core questions raised in this petition, objection in regard to petitioners locus standi to maintain this writ petition needs to be taken up. Objection raised by respondent No. 3 is that petitioner did not possess the requisite research experience and he was called for interview only under pressure inasmuch as no experience obtained by the petitioner while undergoing Ph.D. in Rail Road Construction was relevant for the post of Research Officer in Public Works Department of the State. Argument of Mr. Z. A. Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 was that an ineligible candidate, as the petitioner is, cannot question selection of an eligible candidate. Mr. Shah relied upon Kunda S. Kadam v K. K. Soman, AIR 1980 SC 881. Objection on this score, however, would not carry any substance for 11 the simple reason that the PSC having found respondent No. 3 as well as the petitioner eligible for calling for the interview, each one of them have a right to question the decision of the PSC on the basis of Rule position by invoking power of judicial review of this Court and this Court has the jurisdiction to intervene in case the view taken by the PSC is found contrary to or in conflict with the Rule position. This writ petition, therefore, cannot fail simply on the basis of a contention that petitioner was not eligible. Objection in this regard, therefore, is liable to be rejected without any more discussion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 37 - V R Iyer - Full Document

N. Suresh Nathan And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 November, 1991

Thus, it appears from this judgment that essentially N. Suresh Nathan's case was not followed on the interpretation of the rule, which came in question for consideration before the Court and it was held that the professional experience required cannot be read to have any connection with the Degree in Civil Engineering and, therefore, the professional experience in service irrespective of a Degree in Civil Engineering would be considered for allotting marks by the Selection Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 76 - J S Verma - Full Document

Shailendra Dania & Others vs S.P. Dubey & Others on 17 April, 2007

It is noticed that what is contemplated under the eligibility clause of the Rules is not simply the experience or length of service but the research experience. Neither it has been explained nor any material produced on behalf of the PSC or respondent No. 3 as to how any research experience can be gained before obtaining Masters Degree. It would be beyond a good reason to say that research experience can be gained after Bachelors degree. To take a view that any research experience said to have been gained prior to Masters Degree would suffice or shall be counted to satisfy the requirement under the Rules would infringe and defeat the purpose of the eligibility clause and the concept of qualitative superiority of higher educational qualification as recognised by the Supreme Court in Shailendra Dania (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 87 - P P Naolekar - Full Document
1