HARISH TANDON, PRASENJIT BISWAS
Prahlad Chandra Ray – Appellant
Versus
Satyajit Sarkar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recruitment process initiated (Para 1) |
| 2. writ petition filed (Para 2) |
| 3. interim order implications (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. judicial precedents (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. court's ruling on participation (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. writ petition outcome (Para 18) |
| 7. writ petition dismissed (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The recruitment process for filling up the Group-D post in the concerned school initiated in the year 2006-2007 is still travelling in the Court flagging an issue which is otherwise settled through a catena of judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Apex Court.
3. The said writ petition being WP 8557(W) of 2007 was finally disposed of on 17.07.2013 by the Single Bench directing the concerned District Inspector of School to consider and approve the panel within 4 weeks from the date of the communication of the said order. The aforesaid order is impugned in the instant appeal by the appellant who stood second in the said panel being a sponsored candidate and an application for stay was also filed in the instant appeal which was taken out on 19.08.2013 and interim orders staying the operation of the order for a limited period was passed whi
Abani Mahato vs. Kanchan K. Sinha & Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 527
Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. AIR 2000 SC 1706
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 1992 (4) SCC 363
Debendra Nath Mondal vs. Ratan Kumar Das & Ors. (2008) 4 CHN 275
Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam Krishna District A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao
Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Gaya Nath Rajbanshi vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2008) 2 CHN 879
His Holiness Kesauananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur
Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut
R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. 2006 (6) SCC 430
Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey
Rabindra Nath Mahata vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2005) 3 CHN 337
State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Tulsi Roy vs. Shri Krishanu Roy & Ors. (2011) 2 CHN 1021
The court established that non-sponsored candidates cannot participate in recruitment processes without public advertisement, as it violates constitutional principles of equality and fair opportunity....
The court established that recruitment processes must adhere to the legal framework in place at the time of vacancy and emphasized the necessity of public advertisement for fair selection.
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.
(1) When appointment of candidates is a nullity in law making them disentitled to hold posts, principles of natural justice were not required to be complied with, particularly when same would be noth....
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.