SURINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-123
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on September 25,2014

SURINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ASHISH KUMAR VS. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI [LAWS(PAT)-2016-10-153] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWAS K.M. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [LAWS(KAR)-2023-2-132] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA BABU G.V. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHATA CHOUGALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-1-624] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHATA CHOUGALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-1-624] [REFERRED TO]
ROHAN THAKUR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. YOGESHWARI [LAWS(KAR)-2018-11-153] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

J.S.KHEHAR, J. - (1.)On 16.07.2002, the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') took a decision to fill up 21 posts of Accounts Officer. The above posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. The appellant earned 164 marks in the process of selection. He made the grade, by way of merit, from amongst "backward class" candidates. It is therefore, that he came to be appointed as Accounts Officer, by direct recruitment.
(2.)Respondent No.4 -Anil Kumar Uppal, had also applied for appointment by way of direct recruitment, in response to the same advertisement (in furtherance whereof, the appellant was selected and appointed). His candidature was, however, not accepted. It is therefore, that respondent no.4 approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court') seeking an appropriate direction to the Board, requiring it to allow him (respondent no.4) to participate in the process of selection. By an interim order passed by the High Court, respondent no.4 was allowed to participate in the process of selection.
(3.)On considering the candidature of respondent no.4, the Selection Committee awarded him 146 marks. It is therefore apparent, that in terms of merit, respondent no.4 could not march over the superior claim of the appellant. This was so because, whilst the appellant had been awarded 164 marks in the process of selection, respondent no.4 had been awarded only 146 marks.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.