Judgments - Appointment

When the attempts of Physically Handicapped candidates of OBC Category and Physically Handicapped candidates of General Category, who appeared in the Civil Services Examination are made equal, and a Physically Handicapped candidate belonging to OBC Category, in addition to 10 years relaxation in age also enjoys 3 years more age relaxation for appearing in the examination, we cannot agree with Full Judgment

Tags Appointment Reservation Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

J.ASHOKA Vs. UNIV.OF AGR.SC.& ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 12182 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 15, 2016

Full Judgment

Tags Interpretation Appointment Reservation

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

SRIKANT ROY & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 10874 of 2016, Judgment Date: Nov 16, 2016

Full Judgment

Tags Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds Appointment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

V. LAVANYA & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 10700 of 2016, Judgment Date: Nov 09, 2016

Full Judgment

Tags Appointment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH Vs. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL AND ANR

Writ Petition (Civil), 294 of 2015, Judgment Date: Oct 07, 2016

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

Tags Appointment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

GOV.BODY,L.P SHAHI COLLEGE, PATNA & ANR Vs. SEEMA MISHRA AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 10010 of 2016, Judgment Date: Oct 05, 2016

Full Judgment

Tags Appointment Interpretation

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

ANURAG KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 8334 of 2013, Judgment Date: Oct 05, 2016

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

Tags Advertisement Appointment