Judgments - Appointment
Ramji Tiwari & others v. State of M.P. & others
Law Laid Down - No age is contemplated in respect of limited competitive examination either in Rule 6 or Rule 13 of Madhya Pradesh Junior Administrative Service (Recruitments and Service Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (“in short “the Rules”). Therefore, the Schedule-V of the Rules prescribing the age limit for filling of the posts of Naib Tehsildar from amongst the Patwaris or Revenue Inspectors is without any corresponding support from the substantive provisions of the Rules. In view of the said fact, Full Judgment
Dr. D.P. Singh & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Law Laid Down - Even if there is a mistake in the advertisement in respect of available posts for general category or for reserved category candidates, that will not confer any cause of action upon the petitioners to dispute the selection process as the candidates have to be appointed in respect of posts available but generally not exceeding the posts advertised. The State would be well advised to calculate the backlog vacancies and to fill the seats keeping in view the advertisement Full Judgment
Dr. Avinash Mishra & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Law Laid Down - The State has a right to assess the suitability of a candidate for appointment with or without interview. The State having exercised the jurisdiction in terms of Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for short “the 1990 Rules”), it cannot be said that power of relaxation to do away with the interview is illegal. In exercise of power of judicial review, this Court examines the jurisdiction to relax the Rules. Since there is explicit power Full Judgment
U.P.P.S.C., Through its Chairman & Anr. Versus Rahul Singh & Anr.
Dr. Saiyad Ghazanafar Ishtiaque Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
Law laid down - 1. Once the petitioner appointed on the post of Unani Chikitsa Adhikari under Rule 6 of Madhya Pradesh Health Services (Recruitment) Rules 1967, which gives power to the State Government to appoint a person without consultation with Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and said power is duly endorsed by Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1957 then the said appointment of petitioner would be treated as regular appointment. 2. Once the petitioner Full Judgment
THE KERALA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATIO :Versus: THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
GURMEET PAL SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Through: ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. VERSUS RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Rashmi Thakur Vs. High Court of M.P. & others
Law Laid Down - The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has made a departure from the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 as the reservation for the physically disabled candidates is not dependent on any condition. The reservation can be denied only if any Government establishment is exempted from the provisions of the Act by the Chief Commissioner or the State Commissioner. In absence of any decision to exempt Full Judgment
Pankaj Masodkar Vs. M.P.Public Service Commission and others
Niharika Shukla & others Vs. State of M.P. & others
Law Laid Down - The statutory Rule contemplates that the educational qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor is “as prescribed by the University Grants Commission”, therefore, there is no contradiction between the UGC Regulations and/or statutory Rules framed. There is no reason to question the wisdom of the State Government in grouping the allied subjects with the relevant subjects as none of the subject could be pointed out to be unconcerned or unrelated with the relevant subjects. Still further, the State Government Full Judgment
Thahira. P Vs. The Administrator, UT of Lakshadweep & Ors.
Madhur Vs. State of M.P.
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 Full Judgment
Ms. Reena Khedekar Vs. State of M. P. and Others
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. VERSUS UTILITY USERS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.
AVINASH C. & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dr. Divya Darshan Sharma and others
Law Laid Down - In absence of any definition being provided in the Statute or any statutory rule or instructions supplementing the Khel Sansthaon Evam Khiladiyon Ko Arthik Sahayata, Khel Vritti, Sammannidhi Niyam, 2006 as to what is “representation in the National games or recognized Senior National championship”, the meaning has to be assigned what is understood by a common citizen. The participation in the Zonal or the Inter-university competitions cannot be treated to be a representation in the National level games or Full Judgment