AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img










Amol Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No(S). 7938/2010]

KURIAN, J.

1. The appellant applied for the post of Krishi Sevak in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Maharashtra.

2. The Tribunal, on verification of the records found that the application was under the quota reserved for Ex-Servicemen. The appellant obtained only 46.25% marks. It appears that the appointment was offered to the appellant under the category of 'Scheduled Castes'. The appellant was offered appointment on the basis of application and on the basis of marks secured by him for the 'Ex-Serviceman' category.

3. The appellant took up a contention that his appointment is only under the 'Scheduled Castes' category. If it was in the Scheduled Castes category, the last successful candidate had secured 62.75% marks. Therefore, in any case the appellant was not entitled for appointment.

4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court.

5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

7. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 07, 2017.

Shankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No(S). 7940/2010]

[C.A. No. 7939/2010]

[C.A. No. 7941/2010]

[C.A. No. 7943/2010]

[C.A. No. 7942/2010]

KURIAN, J.

1. The issues raised in these appeals have been dealt with by this Court vide judgment dated 07.11.2017 rendered in Civil Appeal No.7938/2010 titled Amol v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., wherein this Court has upheld the stand taken by the High Court on verification of records that the candidates are not otherwise eligible to be appointed in terms of their merit. The appointment already offered to them was on a mistake of fact, which has only been corrected on verification of the records.

2. Therefore, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

3. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

4. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 07, 2017.


Latest Supreme Court Judgments Back



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys