S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
R. Prema Latha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government Higher Education Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of integrity in public appointments (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual basis for petitions against appointments (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. irregularities in the appointment process (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. locus standi of unsuccessful candidates (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. arguments of petitioners and respondents (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. administering the recruitment notifications (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. findings of the administrator and its implications (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. role of the director of collegiate education (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. issues with previous appointments based on evaluation (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. legal principles regarding the appointment process (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 11. duty of state authorities in selection integrity (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 12. assessing the consequences of selection process integrity (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 13. judicial review of procedural issues in selection (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 14. consequences of large-scale corruption and irregularities (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 15. internal discrepancies in selection committee reports (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 16. legal implications of findings and conclusion |
Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti
All India Railway Recruitment Board vs. K. Shyam Kumar
Amarbir Singh vs. State of Punjab
Amarbir Singh vs. State of Punjab
Anamica Mishra vs. U.P. Public Service Commission
Anand Kumar Pandey, Union of India vs. Anand Kumar Pandey
B. Ramanjini vs. State of A.P.
Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha
Board of High School & Intermediate Education vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta
Dilbagh Singh, State (UT of Chandigarh) vs. Dilbagh Singh
Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai vs. State of Gujarat
Hanuman Prasad vs. Union of India, Hanuman Prasad vs. Union of India
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab
Joginder Pal vs. State of Punjab
Krishan Yadav vs. State of Haryana
O.Chakradhar, Union of India vs. O. Chakradhar
P.Susheela and others v UGC (2015) 8 SCC 129 dated 16/03/2015
P.Susheela and others v UGC (2015) 8 SCC 129 dated 6/12/2010
Pramod Lahudas Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra
Pritpal Singh vs. State of Haryana
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India
Sachin Kumar and Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others
State (UT of Chandigarh) vs. Dilbagh Singh
State of Tamil Naadu Vs. A.Kalaimani
Union of India and Others vs. O.Chakradhar
Union of India vs. Anand Kumar Pandey
Point of Law : It is well settled that a candidate after having been declared unsuccessful, can lay challenge to selection process, if the same is conducted in violation of statutory rules/Recruitmen....
The judgment established that when the selection process itself suffers from legal infirmity, there is no need to analyze individual cases on a case-by-case basis.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.