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

1991 Supreme(SC) 289

A.M.AHMADI, S.C.AGRAWAL
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay – Appellant
Versus
Sushil V. Patkar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Special leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides. The eligibility for appointment was that the candidate should possess M.Ch. qualification. The last date for forwarding the applications was 20th April, 1990 on which date, admittedly, the respondent No. 1 did not possess the said qualification since he claims to have qualified on 22nd May, 1990. Even so, respondent No. 1 was called for interview and he was asked to produce the certificate showing that he had acquired the qualification in question. He failed to-do so even at the interview stage and hence the Selection Board did not select him and informed him about the same. The Selection Board completed the selection and granted appointments accordingly. The respondennt No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order directed that the Selection Board may undertake a reappraisal of the claim of respondent No. 1 along with respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and prepare a fresh list of eligible candidates in accordance with merit for the post in question. In doing so, the appellant complained that the High Court had departed from the earlier decision of another Division Bench on the question of



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