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

1995 Supreme(Guj) 253

B.N.KIRPAL, H.L.GOKHALE
Mukesh B. Desai – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: R.K.MISHRA, T.H.Sompura

B. N. KIRPAL, C. J.

( 1 ) THE appellants are persons who, having failed to get selected for appointment as Lecturers pursuant to the selection having been made by the G. P. S. C. and even having failed to get on to the waiting list, still want to continue to serve as Lecturers merely because they had, at one time, been appointed as such on ad hoc basis. Not only this, the appellant are general category candidates and they want to continue as ad hoc lecturers against the reserved post.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that selection was to ,be made, according to the advertisement of the G. P. S. C. of 25 candidates belonging to the general category and 16 candidates belonging to the reserved category for appointment as Lecturers in the subject of Applied Mechanics. Though the Government had sent necessary requisition to the g. P. S. C. in respect of 41 candidates, the recommendation which it received was only with regard to 25 persons belonging to the general category. No recommendation was made for filling up any of the 16 posts, which were reserved category posts. According to the learned Single Judge, the total number of sanctioned posts were 72. Out of 31 Lecturers, who had b












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