Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sadia Fatima – Respondent
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—The present writ petition is presented on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna in assailing the CAT order dated 26.04.2024 passed in O.A. No. 050/00479/2023.
2. 2nd Petitioner – AIIMS issued an advertisement on 29.06.2019 to fill up one post of Medical Officer (Unani) (UR-01) in the institute on direct recruitment basis. Candidates who have applied for the post were subjected to written test on 29.09.2019. Thereafter, 2nd petitioner had shortlisted and invited for verification of documents for the purpose conducting interview on 19.12.2019. Thereafter, meeting is stated to have been conveyed by the 2nd petitioner to rectify the error committed in the advertisement dated 29.06.2019 insofar as reservation of the advertised vacancy as (UR-01) is to be rectified as (UR - PwBD) (Person with Benchmark Disability). It is defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘Disabilities Act’). In other words, after taking note of Disability Act read with the relevant rules governing Medical Officer (Unani) post was required to be filled up by candidate of UR-PwBD. The
The recruitment process cannot be altered post-advertisement; candidates retain rights if the selection was conducted properly.
Selection processes must adhere to previously established criteria, and unilateral changes are impermissible once the process has commenced.
The Court emphasized that physically disabled individuals constitute a unique category entitled to equal treatment without further classification such as caste or religion, mandating adherence to mer....
The petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest, cannot challenge the same upon being declared unsuccessful. The reservation for PwD is a horizontal reservation, and cand....
Candidates must meet all eligibility criteria, including medical standards outlined in the recruitment notification, to qualify for appointment.
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
The Court emphasized the obligation of the authority to appoint the next selected candidate in case of a vacancy and deemed the inclusion of the vacancy in the subsequent advertisement as illegal.
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
