Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (2.15 seconds)
R. Ponnusamy vs The Registrar, Anna University And Anr. on 24 October, 1991 cites

Naresh Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1981

7. Mr. V. Venkatachalapathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that once the University has prescribed qualifications and given an advertisement, it is not open to them to vary and relax the rules thereafter to suit the second respondent to appoint him to that post. The sum and substance of the contention of Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy is that any appointment made should be in conformity with the advertisement made in the newspapers and here is a case where the first respondent has gone off the track and appointed the second respondent. Learned Counsel relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the District Collector and Chairman Vijianagaram (S.W.R.S.S.) v. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990)2 L.L.J. 153, for the proposition that when an advertisement stipulates a qualification and the appointment of a person with inferior qualification is made, such appointment is invalid and it amounts to playing a fraud on public. Learned Counsel further relies upon the decision reported in Naresh Kumar v. The State of Punjab (1985)1 S.L.R 428 of Punjab and Haryana High Court. That was a case where the candidates were selected inspite of the fact that they were not eligible and did not fulfil the prescribed qualification specified in advertisement. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the selection on the ground that the Chairman of the Board did not deny the fact alleged by the petitioner therein.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1