Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.60 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Electricity Rules, 1956
Abhishek Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 23 August, 2017
20. Even this Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Pandey Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2017 (4) JBCJ 605 held that if the
selection process is vitiated by glaring defects, the same can be challenged
by the candidates even though they have participated in the selection process.
It was further held that an applicant even after appearing in the selection
process for public employment has locus to challenge the procedure and
method of selection. Paragraph-8 is profitable to quote herein below:-
Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 31 January, 2018
In the case of
Ashish Kumar (supra) exactly similar issue fell for consideration before the
Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the writ petition was dismissed, review was
also dismissed and even the Special Leave Petition before the Division
Bench of the High Court was dismissed. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however,
interfered on the ground that there was wrong interpretation of the Rules and
Advertisement. What was being compelled to be complied by the candidates
14
was dehors the Rules applicable to the selection process and therefore, the
Hon'ble Court directed the employer to issue appointment letter to the
appellant of that case. In this view of the matter, these judgments relied by
the learned counsel for the respondents are misplaced.
Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors vs Kamini & Ors on 16 April, 2007
21. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents needs to be addressed. He has relied upon the judgments in the
case of Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Kamini & Ors.
(supra), Bedanga Talukdar (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Karunesh Kumar & Ors (supra) to buttress his argument that if somebody
was illegally appointed, the same cannot be a ground and terms and
conditions stipulated in the advertisement must be adhered to. From perusal
of the judgments, it appears that facts were entirely different to the facts of
the present case. The respondents have failed to demonstrate as to whether
earlier appointments made pursuant to same terms and conditions in the
advertisement were illegal or not. First illegality has to be established, then
such judgments have to be applied. The judgment has to be read as a whole
and not a bit from here and a bit from there. Compelling something which is
impossible dehors the rules cannot be permitted under the law. The hands of
this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is an extra
ordinary power, are not fettered to interfere in a given case.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Karunesh Kumar on 12 December, 2022
21. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents needs to be addressed. He has relied upon the judgments in the
case of Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Kamini & Ors.
(supra), Bedanga Talukdar (supra) and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Karunesh Kumar & Ors (supra) to buttress his argument that if somebody
was illegally appointed, the same cannot be a ground and terms and
conditions stipulated in the advertisement must be adhered to. From perusal
of the judgments, it appears that facts were entirely different to the facts of
the present case. The respondents have failed to demonstrate as to whether
earlier appointments made pursuant to same terms and conditions in the
advertisement were illegal or not. First illegality has to be established, then
such judgments have to be applied. The judgment has to be read as a whole
and not a bit from here and a bit from there. Compelling something which is
impossible dehors the rules cannot be permitted under the law. The hands of
this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is an extra
ordinary power, are not fettered to interfere in a given case.
Malik Mazhar Sultan vs U.P. Public Service Commission Through ... on 26 September, 2023
In this context, reference is made
in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P.
Public Service Commission [Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P.
Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 1870] . Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above
proposition which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 512)
"21. The present controversy has arisen as the
advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates
who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002
shall be treated within age for the examination.
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
"46. From the above discussion, it is evident that the doctrine
of substantive legitimate expectation is entrenched in Indian
administrative law subject to the limitations on its
applicability in given factual situations. The development of
Indian jurisprudence is keeping in line with the developments
in the common law. The doctrine of substantive legitimate
expectation can be successfully invoked by individuals to claim
substantive benefits or entitlements based on an existing
promise or practice of a public authority. However, it is
important to clarify that the doctrine of legitimate expectation
cannot serve as an independent basis for judicial review of
decisions taken by public authorities. Such a limitation is now
well recognised in Indian jurisprudence considering the fact
that a legitimate expectation is not a legal right. [Union of
India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC
499; Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC
625; Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11
SCC 1; Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary, (2016) 4 SCC 236 :