K. M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY
Goa Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Rane – Respondent
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph, J. - Leave granted.
1. By Advertisement No. 14/16 published by the appellant, applications were invited for filling up of six posts of unreserved category and three posts in the reserved category under the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Pursuant to the advertisement, 1866 candidates appeared in the Computer Based screening Test (CBRT) held on 05.03.2017. When the results were declared, only seven candidates including respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before this Court were found to have cleared the test. In terms of the advertisement and the Rules, the written test came to be conducted on 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017. In the results which came to be declared, out of the seven, only four candidates were found qualified. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were among them. There is one Mr. Vivek Krishna Naik who, no doubt, stood first. On 16.05.2017, the appellant decided to fix the cut off marks with respect to the interview. The total marks fixed for the interview was 40. The appellant fixed cut off marks at 26. The final interview took place on 24.05.2017. Mr. Vivek Krishna Naik was declared successful. The results of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646
Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi
K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512
M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293
P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. UOI (1984) 2 SCC 141
State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220
State of Punjab and Others v. Manjit Singh and Others (2003) (11) SCC 559
Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others (2013) 4 SCC 540
The Commission cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection beyond the Rules.
The court clarified that subject-wise qualifying marks cannot be enforced post-examination as it contradicts the established selection rules, emphasizing the necessity for procedural clarity and comp....
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....
(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....
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
(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....
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.