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

1996 Supreme(Ker) 513

C.S.RAJAN
G. Santhana Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

C.S. Rajan, J.

1. The petitioner working in the service of the second respondent as Joint Director. The post to which the petitioner is aspiring to be appointed is Resident Director, Trade Promotion Office, New York. The method of selection and qualification to the above post have been prescribed by Ext. P1 notification by the second respondent. The selection to the above post is to be made by the Government of India after considering recommendation of the Committee consisting of a representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) (Second respondent) and the Director, MPEDA. The appointment will be made by the MPEDA subject to the approval of the Government of India. The prime objection to the selection of the fourth respondent, who is an I. A. S. Officer is that as required under the rules (Ext. P1) no Committee was constituted including the representative of the Ministry of Commerce, Chairman, MPEDA and Director of MPEDA. Therefore, it was stressed in the Original Petition that the committee itself has not been constituted with an ulterior motive to appoint the 4th respondent and it is malafide and biased.

2. A statem






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