Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
Sandeep Rout vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 7 October, 2020 cites

Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs South East Central Railway on 27 November, 2018

In the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra), the controversy related to a decision of the Railway to call 20% extra candidates for document verification to take care of the situation if sufficient candidates fail to appear to fill up the notified vacancy. The appellants were aggrieved since though they were included in the panel with 20% extra candidates and there were vacancies, but they were not appointed. The majority judgment held that the appellants were entitled for appointment as per the instructions of the Railway since all notified vacancies were not filled up. But the dissenting judgment held that there was no cause for interference through judicial review and the authorities were at liberty not to fill up all the vacancies if there are justifications for the same. The controversy in the present OAs in hand arises out of the decision of the 6 respondents to cancel the candidature of the applicants on the ground of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, which is contested by the applicants. The applicant in OA No. 270/20 relies on the law laid down in the above cited judgment that the authority cannot be arbitrary while deciding to refuse appointment to selected candidates.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 80 - D Gupta - Full Document

Kerala State Road Transport ... vs Akhilesh V. S. on 1 April, 2019

In the case of Akhilesh V.S. (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that although the employer has the discretion not to fill up all the vacancies considered in a recruitment process, but there has to be valid reasons for the same and it should not be arbitrary. In the present OAs, the question is whether the applicants would be considered to be eligible for the post of MRW as per the advertisement dated 5.5.2017 and whether the decision to cancel the candidature of the applicants on the ground that they do not fulfill the eligibility criteria is valid and sustainable or it can be termed as arbitrary. In other two cases cited by the applicant's counsel, the facts are different, for which the cited judgments will not be of any help for the applicant's case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - N Sinha - Full Document

M/S. Cable Corpn. Of India Ltd vs Additional Commissioner Of Labour & Ors on 16 May, 2008

11360-11363 of 2015 and in the case of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Akhilesh V.S. and others in Civil Appeal No. 3346 of 2019, Cable Corporation of India Limited vs. Additional Commissioner of Labour and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 581 and Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh vs.K.B.N. Visweshara Rao & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 11676-11724 of 1996.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 9 - A Pasayat - Full Document

The Karnataka State Seeds Development ... vs H. L. Kaveri on 21 January, 2020

In the case of H.L. Kaveri (supra), the advertisement issued by the appellant corporation required the candidates to furnish a certificate of work experience in a reputed company with the application form. The respondent did not enclose such experience certificate with the application form. But in the present OA, respondent-AIIMS did not require any certificate to be enclosed with the application form, but it was to be produced at the time of document verification. The respondents have alleged in the present OA that the applicants have furnished a wrong declaration about the registration. Hence, the cited judgment is factually distinguishable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 23 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002

13. The applicants claim that in some other advertisements, the requirement of registration is not stipulated by AIIMS for the post of MRW. In the written note for the applicant filed in OA No. 278/20, one advertisement dated 28.2.2014 has been enclosed. But such argument will not invalidate the requirements specified in the advertisement dated 5.5.2017, which are relevant for these OAs since the applicants have applied for the posts in question under the said advertisement. It is also noticed that the applicants had not challenged the registration requirement in the advertisement issued on 5.5.2017 in these OAs. Further, having participated in the selection process as per the said advertisement, they cannot challenge the requirement of registration at this stage. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases that a candidate after participating in a selection process, cannot challenge it in the event of his failure in selection. The judgments in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari & others vs. Shakuntala Shukla & others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 and in the case of Trivedi Himanshu Ghanashyam Bhai vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 644 may be referred to in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 400 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... on 10 October, 2007

13. The applicants claim that in some other advertisements, the requirement of registration is not stipulated by AIIMS for the post of MRW. In the written note for the applicant filed in OA No. 278/20, one advertisement dated 28.2.2014 has been enclosed. But such argument will not invalidate the requirements specified in the advertisement dated 5.5.2017, which are relevant for these OAs since the applicants have applied for the posts in question under the said advertisement. It is also noticed that the applicants had not challenged the registration requirement in the advertisement issued on 5.5.2017 in these OAs. Further, having participated in the selection process as per the said advertisement, they cannot challenge the requirement of registration at this stage. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases that a candidate after participating in a selection process, cannot challenge it in the event of his failure in selection. The judgments in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari & others vs. Shakuntala Shukla & others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 and in the case of Trivedi Himanshu Ghanashyam Bhai vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 644 may be referred to in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 45 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1