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

1995 Supreme(SC) 945

B.L.HANSARIA, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.RAMASWAMY
Madhukar Bakru Pingal – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra D. Gaikwad – Respondent


Advocates:
A.M.KHANWILKAR, S.V.DESHPANDEY

ORDER

1. On July 27,1992 applications were invited to fill up the post of Police Patil in the village Ambe, Dindori Taluk of Nasik District. Five persons had applied for the recruitment. The appellant was selected and was appointed as the Police Patil. On challenge being made by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the appointment order of the appellant. The Tribunal observed that 50% of marks were reserved for written examination and 50% marks were for viva-voce and held that the prescription of 50% of marks for viva-voce is arbitrary as per the law laid down by this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appointment of the appellant and directed to appoint the respondent. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

2. Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that even assuming that prescription of 50% of marks for viva- voce is invalid the appropriate course would have been that a direction was given to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to prescribe lesser marks for viva-voce and higher marks for written examination and to direct conducting examinations of the candidates who had applied for afresh and considering the cases of the candidates a


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