AI Overview...
-
LDC Document Verification 2013 and 2017 - Candidates' applications and verification processes faced delays or omissions, leading to non-appearance in selection lists; in some cases, document recognition issues (e.g., diploma recognition) affected appointment prospects. Notional benefits for appointments made in 2017 or based on 2013 recruitment are generally denied if verification was incomplete or delayed, especially when administrative reasons caused delays Praveen Kumar VS State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department - Rajasthan, Pooja Jain, D/o. Shri Dinesh Chandra Jain VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, ASLAM KHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan.
-
Notional Benefits and Eligibility - Candidates appointed in 2013 or 2017, based on specific qualifications or waiting list status, often sought benefits from earlier years but faced denial due to procedural lapses, non-recognition of diplomas, or the recruitment process lapsing. Courts have emphasized that waiting lists do not confer vested rights, and recruitment processes may lapse if not completed within stipulated timelines Bharat Rathore S/o Megh Singh Vs The State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan.
-
Recruitment Rules and Bonus Marks - Certain candidates sought bonus marks under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, but courts held they were not entitled if they did not fulfill criteria or participate in verification, emphasizing strict adherence to rules Giriraj Gujrati S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Gujrati VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan.
-
Court Decisions on Service Benefits - Courts have reinstated employees with benefits where delays in verification were administrative and not attributable to candidates, emphasizing that service benefits cannot be denied solely due to procedural delays if administrative reasons are proven Pooja Jain, D/o. Shri Dinesh Chandra Jain VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, Avdhesh Kumar Meena (Ex-MTS) vs Union of India through the Secretary (Revenue) - Central Administrative Tribunal.
-
General Principles - No vested right to appointment exists; merit and justifiable reasons are paramount. Waiting lists are not rights-bearing, and benefits such as notional benefits are granted only when delays are attributable to administrative lapses, not candidates' fault Ravindra Tiwari vs Aiims - Central Administrative Tribunal, Satish Bhatt vs Health And Family Welfare - Central Administrative Tribunal.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Candidates seeking benefits or appointments related to the 2013 and 2017 LDC recruitment processes often face procedural hurdles, delays, or recognition issues. Courts have clarified that benefits like notional benefits are granted only when delays are due to administrative reasons, and waiting lists do not confer vested rights. Proper verification and adherence to recruitment rules are essential. Administrative delays, if proven, may justify reinstatement with benefits, but procedural lapses or non-recognition of diplomas generally result in denial of benefits or appointment rights.
Search Results for "Ldc Document Verification Year 2013 Not Appear 2017 Document Verification Notional Benefits"
2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 1070 • India - Rajasthan
ARUN BHANSALI
(NICE) - However, apparently on account of said diploma having not been recognized by respondent-State, after document verification ... name of petitioner did not appear in list of selected candidates - It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference ... Employment and Service matter -Appointment - Post of LDC - Petitioner applied pursuant to said advertisement ... However, apparently on account of the said diploma having not been recognized by th....
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 29896 • India - High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench)
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J
appointed in 2017, seeking notional benefits from 2013, which were denied despite similar candidates receiving benefits. ... sought notional benefits from 2013, which were denied by the respondents. ... (A) Rajasthan State Recruitment Rules - Notional benefits - The petitioners, having been appointed based on RS-CIT qualification, ... 2017, they are not entitled to noti....
2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 219 • India - Rajasthan
ARUN MONGA
and consequential benefits of service. ... Fact of the Case: The petitioner participated in the Direct Recruitment of LDC, 2013 ... and was not extended appointment order despite eligibility. ... According to learned counsel, the delay in verification of the documents was occurred due to administrative reasons and not because of him, therefore, service benefits cannot be denied to him. ... As per the respondents, the learned Single Bench rightly arr....
2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 808 • India - Rajasthan
DINESH MEHTA
Bonus Marks - LDC Recruitment - Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - [Rule 273] - The court discussed the interpretation ... , as required by Rule 273, and therefore, was not entitled to bonus marks. ... department or scheme, and therefore, he was not entitled to bonus marks as per Rule 273. ... When the respondents did not call him for documents verification, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to accord him bonus ....
2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1215 • India - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN, J
The court found that the waiting list does not confer vested rights and the recruitment process for 2013 has lapsed. ... (A) Rajasthan Public Service Commission Act, 2013 - Recruitment Process - The petitioners challenged the non-selection from the ... and that the recruitment process for 2013 has been finalized, thus no relief can be granted to the petitioners. ... Further, it was submitted that vide various letters respondents have admitted the fact that from the overall list of 1197 non-joiner/ineligible candidates, 9....
2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2331 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
(2017) 14 SCC 1], the Apex Court noticed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 visualises a sea change and conceives of actualisation of the benefits engrafted under the said Act.
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4017 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, A
14) ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of context in cases of suppression of information in verification ... without evaluating the context - Reinstatement ordered with back pay and benefits. ... -14) ... ... Result: Original application allowed; termination quashed and applicant reinstated with all benefits ... The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including pay, seniority and other notional benefits#....
2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 410 • India - Jharkhand
D.N.PATEL, AMITAV K.GUPTA
permissible in the eyes of law. – Every candidate is bound to give correct application with all necessary documents on or before ... 2013. – Thus, the selected candidates have already joined the services and, thereafter, 5th Combined Civil Service Examination has ... preferred by this appellant. – Even otherwise also, result of 4th Combined Civil Service Examination has been published in the year ... There will be huge waste of time and energy by the respondents and, hence, prior submission of the document before the cut....
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5247 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, A
- The court emphasized that while there is no indefeasible right to appointment, the state must provide justifiable reasons for not ... That it is further humbly submitted that waiting list was declared against only the selected category of candidate(s) who failed to report for eligibility & original document verification on scheduled date and time after approval of Competent Authority.” ... The appellants shall be entitled to notional benefits from the date of such deemed appointment only for the purpo....
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5216 • India - Central Administrative Tribunal
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, A
no vested right to appointment, candidates must be considered based on merit and the state must provide justifiable reasons for not ... ... ... Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents acted justifiably in not operating the waiting list for general candidates ... That it is further humbly submitted that waiting list was declared against only the selected category of candidate(s) who failed to report for eligibility & original document verification on scheduled date and time after approval of Competent Authori....
Filter by Legal Phrase
