//
archives

employment exchange

This tag is associated with 2 posts

service matter = for appointment in job= In a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam vs. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao (1996 (6) SCALE 676), it was held that whose names are enrolled with the Employment Exchange and who have been sponsored will be considered and also other candidates, who have responded to the notification for public employment will also be considered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:   THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU   WRIT PETITION No.19302 OF 2011   BETWEEN: Thalamanchi Sanath Kumar S/o.Jaya Kumar Reddy …. Petitioner AND The Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Plot No.5, Rutwik Enclave, A.K. … Continue reading

Service Law : Appointment-Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM)- Qualifications for : (i) passing of Matriculation Examination and (ii) possession of agricultural land on the last date of submission of application form-A candidate with more marks in the Matriculation Examination than a persan appointed to the post-The said candidate also possessed agricultural land on the last date of submission of application form-But the mutation entry could only be effected 10 days later-However, the said candidate was not appointed to the post of EDBPM-But the CAT directed appointment of the said candidate-High Court affirmed this decision-Correctness of- Held: Owning of agricultural land and getting the same entered in Revenue Records are two different and distinct things-The said candidate became owner of agricultural land before the last date of submission of application form and, therefore, she was eligible-Moreover, she was more meritorious than the person appointed as EDBPM since she had obtained more marks- Hence, authorities not justified in appointing some other person by ignoring the case of the said candidate-Hence, directions of CA T and High Court not interfered with. Appointment-Illegal appointment- Quashing of-An employee had been working on a post for a period of about 8 years-Effect of-An aggrieved candidate approached competent Tribunal immediately after issuance of order in favour of the other employee-Due to pendency of the matter before Tribunal the said candidate could not get the case decided and the matter finally adjudicated-Held : Case of the other employee to be considered for appointment in nearby vicinity if otherwise she is fit-Delay in disposal of case should not cause prejudice to the aggrieved candidate who had approached the Tribunal in time-Hence, CAT and High Court rightly set aside the appointment of the other employee and directed appointment of the aggrieved candidate. Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 35-Entry in Public record-Mutation entry in revenue records- Right or title to property-Held: It does not confer right or title to property- Owning of land and getting the same entered in revenue records are two different and distinct things-Mutation entry neither creates nor extinguishes title or ownership. The appellant was appointed to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post master (EDBPM). The qualifications for appointment as EDBPM were passing of Matriculation Examination and possession of agricultural land on the last date of submission of the application form. The appellant fulfilled both the qualifications and was, therefore, appointed to the said post and she had been working in the said post for a period of almost 8 years. However, respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the appointment of the appellant on the ground that she had obtained more marks in the Matriculation Examination than the appellant. The appellant also contended that she had become the owner of an agricultural land on the basis of a gift deed before the last date of submission of the application form but the mutation entry could be effected only 10 days later. CAT allowed the application. High Court affirmed the said decision. Hence the appeal.

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6275 of 2004 PETITIONER: SUMAN VERMA RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/2004 BENCH: Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising from Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 8809 of 2004) Thakker, J. Leave granted. The present appeal is filed against … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,884,333 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com