SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 660

G.B.PATTANAIK, S.N.VARIAVA, UMESH C.BANERJEE
K. Prabhakara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


ORDER

This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras. The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer under the Railway Administration. He qualified in the written test, and was called for interview, but as he could not secure the minimum percentage of marks required in the viva-voce test, as per paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, he was not given the appointment. Two other persons, who had also applied for the same post along with the appellant, being unsuccessful in getting into the service, had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal followed the earlier judgment of the said Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989 and allowed the OAs. In O.A. 389/1989, the Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench came to the conclusion that the fixation of minimum percentage of marks for viva-voce test under paragraph 205 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual cannot be sustained in law, and accordingly the same is illegal. Against the said judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 389/1989, the Union of India had approached this Court in Special Leave Petition




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top