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

1996 Supreme(SC) 772

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Harish Chandra – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. The impugned direction of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25696 of 1990 is being challenged in the first case and a similar direction of a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 2.4.1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28719 of 1992 following the earlier judgment is being assailed in the second case. The question of law involved in both these appeals is one and the same, namely, is the High Court justified in issuing a mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the respondents who were in the Select List of the year 1987 even after the expiry of the said list, the list under the Recruitment Rules having the force only for a period of one year from the date of selection.

3. The Recruitment/selection to the posts in class III and class IV is made under a Statutory Rule called the Sub-ordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Recruitment Rules"). Under the Rules the Appointing Authority is required to determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of year and notify the same to the Employment Exchan












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