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

2009 Supreme(SC) 2036

K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM, J. M. PANCHAL
Malik Mazhar Sultan – Appellant
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission – Respondent


ORDER :

K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI.

IA No. 56

On 4-1-2007, Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission,(2008) 17 SCC 703, this Court had given certain directions regarding the selection and appointment of members of the subordinate judicial officers in various courts. In the tabular form, the number of vacancies are notified by the High Court/Public Service Commission. It was directed that the further vacancies that may arise due to elevation or death or otherwise, 10% of the posts shall be notified and this is referred at para 15 of the order; it is further stated: (Malik Mazhar case1, SCC p. 711)

    "We further direct that ten per cent of unforeseen vacancies would be in respect of sanctioned posts and not vacancies occurring in a particular year."

2. It has been pointed out by the counsel appearing for the various High Courts that 10% of the sanctioned posts are notified in some States. A large number of posts are to be notified whereas there was corresponding number of vacancies to be filled if the candidates are selected in the select list. There may be an expectation for such candidates to get appointment and this creates unwanted litigation by the candidates and it is pray

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