Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Nihal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (oral)
CM APPL. 29071/2023 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7488/2023 & CM APPL. 29070/2023
3. Vide the present petition, petitioners pray as under:
a) To direct the respondents to modify the result dated 12.04.2023 and that of the petitioner as informed on 04.05.2023;
b) To direct the respondents to get the correctness of the answers to two questions examined from independent subject expert;
c) To direct the respondents to give the details of the last selected candidates in OBC category;
d) To direct the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioners for the vacancies for post of HC(RM) if remains unfilled after any of the selected candidate does not join.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in brief, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to treat the present petition as a representation of the petitioner, and the same shall be decided by the Board of Officers consisting of Mathematics and Science experts within six weeks from today with a reasoned order.
5. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter
The decision of independent subject experts is final and binding on the petitioner.
The decision of the Board of Officers shall be final and binding on the petitioner.
Selected reserved category candidate qualifying written exam and producing valid category certificate at document verification cannot be denied appointment for expired certificate at application cut-....
Petitioners did not have a vested right of appointment and did not qualify for the post.
The court upheld the principle that once vacancies are filled and waiting lists expire, claims for appointment cannot be considered.
Transparency and communication in the appointment process, and the right to seek legal remedy if dissatisfied with the decision.
THE COURT CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW OR ON THE GROUND THAT A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE COURT/TRIBUNAL ON A POINT OF FACT OR LAW.
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
