Back
HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, S. V. N. BHATTI
Salam Samarjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Manipur At Imphal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents – High Court of Manipur and the Registrar General are represented by Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Senior Counsel.
2. While deciding this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, there was a difference of opinion and having regard to the conflicting judgments rendered by the two learned Judges on 7.10.2016, the matter was directed to be placed before a three-judge Bench. Thereafter, when a similar question of law was found pending before the Constitution Bench i.e., in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others1[Tej Prakash Pathak And Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors. C.A. No. 2634/2013 & batch] (for short “Tej Prakash Pathak”), this case was tagged with the said case. On 12.07.2023, however submission was made before the Constitution Bench by the learned counsel for the parties that reference to the Constitution Bench along the lines in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is unnecessary and therefore the difference of opinion between the two Judges in the present case should be resolved by a three-Judge Bench.
3. According to the learn
(1) Appointment on post of District Judge (Entry Level) – Executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where method of final selection by combining cumulative grade value obtained in writte....
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruit....
Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral char....
The Commission cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection beyond the Rules.
The petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest and having failed, cannot challenge the selection process or the validity of the proviso to Rule 6(2)(a) of the Service Ru....
The High Court's revision of eligibility criteria for judicial promotions, requiring separate minimum marks in written and viva voce, is valid, distinguishing between different recruitment methods wh....
The court affirmed the authority of recruitment committees to establish cut-off marks post-examination, provided it serves the objective of selecting qualified candidates.
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
