Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.65 seconds)High Court Of Delhi & Anr vs A.K. Mahajan & Ors on 15 May, 2009
The learned
counsel submits that this mistake by itself cannot add any advantage
to the case of the applicants/petitioners, as the Rules of the year
2010, can even otherwise stand on its own, with independent
existence. With regard to the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that, by virtue of Ext.R1(b) amendment
brought about in the year 2015, effecting correction of the name of
Rules which was actually superseded by Annexure A2 Rules, it has
O.P.(CAT) No. 23 of 2015
and connected cases
: 9 :
been categorically stated that the same would be retrospective in
operation. In response to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that Rules might be held as only
prospective, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents that such prospective operation could
be given, only if the Rules, by virtue of the amendment, take away
any accrued or vested right and never otherwise. What is a 'vested
right' under such circumstances, has already been explained by the
Apex Court as per the decision reported in High Court of Delhi &
Anr. Vs. A.K. Mahajan & Ors. [(2009) 12 SCC 62], submits the
learned counsel.
Dilip Kumar Garg & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 March, 2009
11. The point to be considered is only with regard to the
rationality of the amendment or whether Rule could be struck down
for having changed method of Recruitment as to the course stipulated
for dealing with 'unfilled vacancies', if the qualified departmental
hands are not available. In other words, mainly because of the
reason that the 'left over vacancies' were thrown open to the GDS
hands to be considered got changed and were left to be filled up by
Open Recruitment, will it tilt the balance in any manner, is the point to
be answered. The answer can only be an emphatic 'No', in so far as
it is for the Rule Making authority to stipulate the norms for
recruitment; especially, the qualification, experience, method of
recruitment and the zone of consideration depending upon the job
O.P.(CAT) No. 23 of 2015
and connected cases
: 11 :
specification/job requirements and to meet the organizational interest.
This alone has been virtually done by the Government, invoking the
power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and having done
such exercise, it is not for this Court or the Tribunal to sit in appeal as
to the feasibility, correctness or otherwise to hold whether the change
brought about is liable to be sustained. We find support from the
ruling rendered in Dilip Kumar Garg Vs. State of U.P [(2009) 4
SCC 753]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1