Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
Binod Karmakar, S/o Bikash Karmakar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K.M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party No. 1 – 87 in the connected interlocutory application. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the respondents/applicants in the Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission Assam (SSA) and Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel for the respondents/opposite party in the Elementary Education Department.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 87 numbers of petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing the notice dated 19.07.2022, and also for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to publish a fresh notification taking into account the vacancies reserved by this Court, vide judgment and order dated 19.07.2021, passed in writ appeal, being WA No. 69/2021, and to allow the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process.
3. It is also to be noted here that the respondent No.4 has also filed one interlocutory application, being I.A. (Civil) No. 1127/2025, for granting permission to declare the result, and therefore, Mr. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the SSA has contended to
The court affirmed the need for the State to comply with previous directives regarding the inclusion of CTET qualified candidates in teacher recruitment, emphasizing adherence to equity and judicial ....
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
The judgment emphasized the limited review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and highlighted that no vested rights could accrue to the petitioners due to an advertisement th....
The retrospective application of administrative guidelines to recruitment processes initiated prior to those guidelines' issuance is unlawful and violates principles of natural justice.
Though the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioners appear to be on the ground of not acquiring the TET qualification within a particular age, it is an admitted fact that all the petitioners ....
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge the process or regulations post-selection, establishing a principle of acquiescence in recruitment law.
Parity – When there is a declaration of law by court, Judgment can be treated as Judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by treating those similarly situated, similarly.
Point of Law : Doctrine of Estoppel debars a person/authority from negating any fact constituted to be truth either by action or deeds or by representation of that person/authority.
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
