Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.VINOD KUMAR
P.Manimuthupandi – Appellant
Versus
Reserve Bank of India Rep. By Chief General Manager, Human Resource Management Department (HRMD), Mumbai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenged exclusion from final selection list. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. respondents defended selection process based on merit. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. court emphasized transparency and merit-based selection. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the records.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on written examination being held on 27.12.2018, second and third respondents published the results of the written examination on 28.01.2019 in their Official Website; that totally 33 candidates including the petitioner Roll Number, were included in the result of written examination held for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Regional Office; that the respondents issued call letter to him through e-mail on 07.02.2019 to appear for physical test on 18.02.2019 at 9.30 a.m., at its Zonal Office in Chennai; that he had appeared for physical test on the scheduled date and participated in all the events which were conducted to test physical skill and got qualified in all the events.
5. Petitioner further contended that after attending the certificate verificatio
Placement in a selection list does not guarantee appointment without fulfilling eligibility requirements.
Selection processes must be fair and transparent, with candidates having no vested rights if they participated without protest, respecting merit-based adjustments among categories.
The applicant failed to secure employment due to miscategorization, emphasizing the need for accurate category declaration to access reservation benefits.
In the absence of specific provision for a waiting list, candidates cannot claim appointment on vacancies left unfilled due to non-joining of selected candidates.
The recruitment process must adhere strictly to stipulations in the advertisement, and a candidate cannot contest procedures post-participation without valid grievances if unsuccessful.
The main legal point established is that the plea for parity with appointed candidates is not applicable if the petitioner had not been appointed, and the court has the authority to quash an order if....
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
