Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 21231 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 17, 2018

Law laid down -

(1) The word ‘suitable’ does not require a definition because any man of experience would know who is suitable. However, each case has to be viewed in the context in which the word ‘suitability’ or ‘suitable’ is used i.e. the object of the enactment & the purpose sought to be achieved.

(2) ‘Eligibility’ is a matter of fact whereas ‘suitability’ is a matter of opinion.

(3) M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961- when Competent Authority has examined the suitability under Rule 6(3) of Rules of 1961, interference is totally not warranted. The Competent Authority has not committed any error in treating the petitioner as not suitable for the post of Assistant Director (Finance) in view of pendency of criminal cases for offences which are not trivial in nature.

(4) The scope of judicial review of administrative order is limited.

Madhur Vs. State of M.P.

For the Latest Updates Join Now