Judgments - Appointment
J.ASHOKA Vs. UNIV.OF AGR.SC.& ORS.
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
V. LAVANYA & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH Vs. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL AND ANR
In my considered view the Rules and the instructions clearly demonstrate that there was no cut-off mark or pass mark for the viva voce examination in the past and therefore the High Court on 12.01.2015 made a specific Resolution that no one shall be declared passed and selected for appointment unless he secures minimum 40% in the Full Judgment
GOV.BODY,L.P SHAHI COLLEGE, PATNA & ANR Vs. SEEMA MISHRA AND ORS
ANURAG KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
It is significant that the Rules refer to the recruitment year. It is a well-accepted principle of service law that only the number of vacancies that are advertised can be filled up. If the advertisement gives liberty to the Government to vary the number of posts, such power cannot be exercised for filling up future vacancies. If additional posts were created during the recruitment year i.e. Full Judgment
RAMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
MAHINDER SINGH Vs M/S. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD.
B.H. KHAWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28.11.2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to “Koshti” community, as being “Halba” Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to November 28, 2000 (the day on which Milind’s case was decided Full Judgment
Y.NAJITHAMOL & ORS. Vs. SOUMYA S.D.& ORS.
Having concluded that the selection of Extra Departmental Agents or Gramin Dak Sevaks to the post of Postman under Column 11(2)(ii) of the Recruitment Rules is only by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion, the question of whether reservation for candidates belonging to OBC category is allowed becomes easier to answer. It has now been well settled by a nine judge Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Full Judgment