Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Manish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)
By this common order CWP-8865-2021, CWP-10521-2021 and CWP-10582-2021 are being disposed of since issues involved in all the petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-8865-2021.2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking:
(i) setting aside result dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure P-4).
(ii) direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for Practical (Skill) Test.
3. The petitioner, pursuant to an advertisement by respondent-ITBP applied for the post of Constable (Driver). He cleared Physical Efficiency Test (for short 'PET') and Physical Standard Test (for short 'PST').
4. On 19.01.2020, he appeared for written test and qualified the same. He secured 79 marks, out of 100. He was further subjected to qualifying Practical (Skill) Test on 25.02.2021. He secured 10.5 out of 50 marks whereas minimum qualifying marks were 16.5. The respondent rejected candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in the Practical (Skill) Test. Thus, he could not be c
Eligibility criteria for recruitment must be established prior to the examination, and any changes post-examination violate principles of fairness and transparency.
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruit....
The court affirmed that candidates should not face disqualification from selection processes not transparently defined upfront, emphasizing equal treatment under similar circumstances.
Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral char....
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process, as estoppel applies. Eligibility is determined by the employer based on stated qualifications within the....
The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks in judicial appointments, affirming that candidates who do not meet these criteria lack standing to challenge the selection process.
(1) Appointment on post of District Judge (Entry Level) – Executive instructions cannot override statutory Rules where method of final selection by combining cumulative grade value obtained in writte....
The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks for recruitment as a discretionary power of the Commission, emphasizing administrative fairness and the principle that participation in the p....
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
