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

2022 Supreme(Pat) 323

MADHURESH PRASAD
Md. Shamsher – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shaildendra Kr. Diwedi.

JUDGMENT

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.:–

Today being Friday, matters are being taken up through virtual mode as per current procedure for hearing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

3. An advertisement for appointment on the post of Special Survey Amin was published by the respondents. The advertisement Number is 01/2019. The petitioner has submitted his application online under the procedure specified in the advertisement.

4. The petitioner’s grievance is that while entering his educational qualifications online, he committed two mistakes. The first mistake is that he has claimed his qualification to be issued by government institution. The second mistake that he has committed, is that he has claimed the qualification to be from a government institution in the State of Bihar.

5. The admitted position is that he has qualifications, but from a private institution, that also, in the State of Haryana.

6. It is, therefore, submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner being qualified in terms of the advertisement, could not have been disqualified or

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