Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.84 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mangla Ram Bishnoi &Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 6 January, 2010
The fact, however, remains that in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Manglaram (supra), those reserve category candidates who have taken benefit of age relaxation are also entitled to migrate to open/ general category. In the present matter, migration of reserve category is permitted even if they have taken benefit of relaxed standards in the selection. It is pursuant to the circular issued much after the advertisement.
Union Of India vs Ramesh Ram & Ors on 7 May, 2010
So far as the judgment in the case of Union of India versus Ramesh Ram & ors (supra) is concerned, issue for consideration was altogether different. It was a case where selection was made for various services with an option for preference. Many candidates of reserve category obtained more marks than the cut off for general category thus they were placed in the general list and not allowed to migrate in reserve list for preference of service. Hon'ble Apex Court held that a reserve category candidate can opt to remain in general list or to go back to the reserve list to seek preference of the service. It was keeping in mind that reserve category candidates having secured more marks and placed in the general list cannot be deprived to get preference of service in comparison to other reserve category candidate obtained less marks thus remained in the reserve list only. The facts and issue for consideration was thus altogether different. This is more so when it was in reference to particular rules applicable to those selections and the case in hand is not having the similar rules.
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 8 January, 2010
In the case of Jitendra Kumar (supra) para 46, 48 and 77 deal with the first question framed in para 11 and it is the same as exist herein. In view of the judgment aforesaid, concession in fee and relaxation of age are not part of selection process, however, migration is permissible when in the process of selection all are given equal and similar treatment. The judgment referred above itself gives answer of the issue involved herein.
Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987
(1)(1984) 2 SCC 141
(2)(1985) 3 SCC 721
(3)(1987) 4 SCC 646
In view of the judgment referred to above, it was not permissible to change rule of game in the midst of selection. This is more so when selection was started prior to the circular dated 11.5.2011. In the aforesaid background, the said circular cannot be applied to the selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.10.2010. This is more so when process of selection is to be governed by the Standing Orders, which shows that if reserve category candidates secured equal or higher marks to the general/ open category candidates then they would be allowed to migrate to general category if they have not availed any relaxation other than of fee.
Article 38 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983
27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum m arks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India(1), Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (2) and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (3).