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

2005 Supreme(SC) 1386

G. P. MATHUR, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, R. C. LAHOTI
Mohd. Siddiq Ali – Appellant
Versus
High Court of A. P. through Registrar – Respondent


Judgment

G.P. Mathur, J.—1. The issue raised in the Civil Appeals and Writ Petitions which have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is same and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification on 23.10.1996 for making appointments to the posts of District Munsiff and the relevant part of the notification which has a bearing on the controversy in dispute is reproduced below:

“Notification

For appointment to the post of District Munsiffs.

Applications are invited for 200 posts of District Munsiffs of which 27 by limited Recruitment-backlog vacancies and 173 by General Recruitment in the A.P. State Judicial Services.

Vacancy Position:

....................................................... .......................................................

Note: 1. The General Recruitment vacancies are subject to the rule of Spl. Representation under Rule 10 of the Spl. Rules for A.P. State Judicial Service and also Rule 22(A)(2) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules.

2. The High Court reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of vacancies after issue of this notification, if necessary.”

After a written exa
























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