SECRETARY TAMIL NADU PUBLIC COMMISSION Vs. A.B. NATARAJAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-6-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
June 30,2014
SECRETARY
Appellant
VERSUS
A.B. Natarajan
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MANIRATAN KUMAR VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-9-173] [REFERRED TO]P. DIVYA VS. M.D., APPGCL, HYD [LAWS(APH)-2018-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS KUMAR VERMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
PINKI DEVI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-8-198] [REFERRED TO]
HEMAL ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. VEER NARMAD SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-2016-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
G REKHA VS. V RAMACHANDRA REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHARTH ASHWINBHAI PAREKH VS. VIR NARMAD SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-4-158] [REFERRED TO]
SAKET KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-193] [REFERRED TO]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. MAYANK RAI ETC [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKE KRANTTI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
KABITA JENA VS. RAJAT KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted. As all these appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 4th March, 2011, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1063 and 1287 of 2009, they have been heard together and decided by this common judgment.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as follows.
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') had issued an advertisement on 27th December, 2000, inviting applications for 95 posts for Group I Services. Subsequently, the vacancies had been decreased and it was notified that in all 91 vacancies had to be filled up.
(3.)In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, several candidates had submitted their applications and ultimately they had also appeared in the preliminary examination. The candidates who had been declared qualified in the preliminary examination were asked to appear in the main written examination. Subsequently, oral interviews had been conducted of the candidates who were selected in the main examination and thereafter a final select list had been prepared by the Commission.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as follows.
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') had issued an advertisement on 27th December, 2000, inviting applications for 95 posts for Group I Services. Subsequently, the vacancies had been decreased and it was notified that in all 91 vacancies had to be filled up.
(3.)In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, several candidates had submitted their applications and ultimately they had also appeared in the preliminary examination. The candidates who had been declared qualified in the preliminary examination were asked to appear in the main written examination. Subsequently, oral interviews had been conducted of the candidates who were selected in the main examination and thereafter a final select list had been prepared by the Commission.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.