Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)

M.P. Public Service Commission vs Navnit Kumar Potdar on 19 September, 1994

The law on the point of short-listing is settled. In a case where there are large number of candidates, it is always open to the Recruiting Body to short list candidates, provided that such short listing is reasonable and not arbitrary. If Authority needs to be cited, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Ors. . In the instant case in the Rules as framed and which are known as the Indian Legal Service Rules, 1957 under Rule 1(A), preference has to be given to candidates as set out who are working in the Department of Legal Affairs if such post is in the Department of Legal Affairs, and to a person with experience in legislative drafting if such post is in the Legislative Department. These Rules are not the subject-matter of challenge before the Tribunal. The petitioner herein while short listing the applicant have taken this rule into consideration. Once the Rules itself provided that a certain class of applicants are to be given preference, the Public Service Commission was bound to take that into consideration. They have so done. In the reply submitted before the Tribunal in Para-4(xiii) it was set out that in the short listing criteria approved in the case, candidates belonging to Indian Legal Service had to be given preference over the candidates possessing experience as legal practitioners. The Tribunal did not take this fact into consideration while holding that no criteria has been disclosed insofar as Category No. I is concerned. In our opinion the explanation given for short listing was reasonable and not arbitrary. We are clearly of the opinion that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 5th March, 2003 is not sustainable and suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of record and consequently is liable to be quash and set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 199 - N P Singh - Full Document

The Joint Commissioner Of Customs ... vs Smt. T.E. Radha, Sundaraj Gugan, ... on 28 October, 2005

Para 4(x): As regards averments made in this Para, it is submitted that the power of the Commission to shortlist the candidates to be called for interview have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in their judgment in , Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1990 filed by the (Union of India v. T. Sundaram and Ors.), (Annexure R.I.). It is further submitted that the candidates possessing 27 years' experience as legal practitioner were called for interview. The applicant was not called for interview as he possesses 18 years experience as legal practitioner and 6 years as Central Government Advocate. The shortlisting criteria adopted by the Commission was applied uniformly to all the candidates. No discrimination and unequal treatment has been meted out to the applicant.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1