Back
ALEXANDER THOMAS, T. R. RAVI
Vinod T. P. S/o Premanandan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Kerla Public Service Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The prayers in the afore-captioned Original Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, are as follows: (See Page No. 5 of the paper book of this Original Petition):
(ii) To issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri. P. Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the OP/applicants 3 to 5, 7, 10 and 12 in the OA, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 herein, Sri. B. Vinod, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 to 15, contesting respondents 16 to 21 in this Original Petition are original applicants in the O.A. other than the petitioners herein and who have already obtained advice. In view of the said submission that the said contesting respondents in the OP have already secured advice or appointments and as there is no conflic
Important points:Daily wage persons and provisional persons are being engaged by the respondent-Department of Social Justice, as drivers to cater to their travel requirements and that the said practi....
Point of Law : Recruitment over and above notified vacancies is not in accordance with constitutional mandate of equal opportunity of unemployment, envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of equal opportunity for public employment and the interpretation of selection rules in the context of ongoing and continuous re....
The court reinforced that candidates cannot compel filling vacancies from expired ranked lists, affirming appointing authorities' discretion over vacancy reporting under government policy.
The decision not to recruit new personnel until an extensive restructuring is done was found to be non-arbitrary and reasonable.
Candidates do not possess an indefeasible right to be appointed from a ranked list unless state authorities' actions are found arbitrary or unreasonable.
A party cannot seek a direction to Government for the creation of posts since such exercise is within the exclusive domain of the State Government and it is not for the constitutional courts to issue....
State or any public agency, cannot be precluded from challenging a judgment on the ground that it approaches this court, filing an appeal against only one party – Even if in that case, normative basi....
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
