Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A person’s identity is not lost when he is not recognized by a machine, and in such circumstances, his claim has to be verified on the basis of the documents which he possesses regarding his identification.”
Supreme Court found no logic or rationale behind excluding candidates holding Master’s or Doctorate degrees in these subjects from claiming the post of FSO, as such an interpretation would have been unjust, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
The aspirant, who crossed the age limit of 35 years contended that there was no recruitment undertaken during the year 2023-2024, though, the vacancies were available and therefore, she did not get a chance to participate.
The petitioners had completed their LL.B., but disputes had arisen as to the recognition of their college as a recognized institute.
“In matters of recruitment to services, interference to the process of recruitment when otherwise conducted in a transparent, fair and reasonable manner with no allegation of malafides cannot be gone into in the limited power of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
The Court added that this directive does not affect ongoing recruitment where examinations have already been conducted.
“Recruiting bodies subject to the extant rules may devise an appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure is transparent non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary, and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved”
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34(3): Limitation period under S. 34(3) for filing petition challenging arbitral award is considered
MP High Court affirmed the candidates’ right to access information about the performance of other candidates as part of a public activity.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that non-inclusion of Professors/Head of the Department in selection committee amounts to violating the mandate of Madhya Pradesh Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Avam Sanchar Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1990.
“The petitioners took a calculated chance to get a berth in the said recruitment but finding that they are not selected, they decided to file writ questioning the Rule that it is not in accordance with law.”
Calcutta High Court detected procedural lapses, including discrepancies in the written exam, absent candidates, and hasty completion of the entire process.
When substantial justice and technical considerations conflict, substantial justice should be preferred, and the right to be considered for appointment should not be defeated based on panel expiration.
The instant matter involved a dispute over the preparation of a merit list for government posts in West Bengal, with a focus on the treatment of candidates from reserved categories who had availed age and fee relaxations.
“The approach of the High Court is like a visually impaired person looking for a black cat in a dark room when the cat itself is not there.”, observed the Supreme Court.
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder and Dr Y. K. Srivastava, JJ. dismissed the present appeal since this was not
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and Prakash Padia, JJ. contemplated a writ presented by retired District Judge and
Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Arun Bhansali, J. allowed a petition filed to claim seniority on the basis of the merit
Allahabad High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. allowed a writ appeal and directed the respondents to allow