ANIL R.DAVE, A.K.SIKRI
Yogesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Judgment :-
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Counsel for the parties were heard at length on the issue involved in these cases. We now proceed to decide the same by this order.
3. Matter pertains to appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Law) in the Other Backward Class (OBC Category). Appointments to the vacancies in the aforesaid post were to be made in the office of Competition Commission of India (CCI). The three appellants in these three appeals were also the candidates who appeared in the written test. After qualifying the written test, they also faced the interview. However, their names did not appear in the list of candidates finally selected. According to the appellants, their non-selection was the result of altering the prescribed mode of selection -mid-way i.e. after the initiation of recruitment process which was impermissible. This contention has not found favour with either the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by them or the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeals filed by them challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. Bone of contention, before us also, remains the same. Therefore, the issue which needs to be decided is as to whet
Himani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 (Paras 12
Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 (Para 12)
K.Manjusree vs. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 (Para 12)
State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors.
M.P.Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Anr. (1994) 6 SCC 293 (Para 17)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.