REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Priyabrata Sahu Appellant

V/S

State Orissa Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

M/S. PANNALAL BINJRAJ AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MANAK LAL ADVOCATE V. DR. PREM CHAND SINGHVI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE AMRAVATI [REFERRED TO]
H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIVAJI RAO SGINDIA BAHADUR OF GWALIOR H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MAHARANA SHRI BHAGWAT SINGHJI BAHADUR OF UDAIPUR COL H H BRARBANS SARAMAUR RAJA I RAJAGAN SIR PRATAP SINGH MALVENDRA BAHADUR COL RAJA SURINDER SINGH BAHADUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
G SARANA VS. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR CHANDRA BHAN SINGH VS. LATAFAT ULLAH KHAN [REFERRED TO]
LILA DHAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
Y V RANGAIAH STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. J SREENIVASA RAO:S SREENIVASA RAO [REFERRED TO]
A A CALTON VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR YADAV STATE OF HARYANA D R CHAUDHARY MEMBER VS. STATE OF HARYANA:SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA:ASHOK KUMAR YADAV [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA VS. AKHILESH KUMAR SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH SLJSHIL KLJMAR SRIVASTAVA D P SHUKLA CHANDRA PRAKASH AGGARWAL SUSHILCHAND SRIVASTAVA R P LAVANIA P N PARASHAR VS. RAFIQUDDIN:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MEHMOOD ALAM TARIQ STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN:KUNJ BIHARI SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
P GANESHWAR RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
P MAHENDRAN MALTEESH Y ANNIGERI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
MANJEET SINGH UDC K PRAKASAM VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION :T SUBRAHMANYAM [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
POWER CONTROL APPLIANCES SUMEET RESEARCH AND HOLDINGS VS. SUMEET MACHINES PRIVATE LIMITED :SUMEET MACHINES [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. NARAIN PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KRISHAN NIWAS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. N CHANDRASEKHARAN [REFERRED TO]
UTKAL UNIVERSITY VS. NRUSINGHA CHARAN SARANGI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ANILKUMAR SUNILKUMAR AND PARTY [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SYAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MEHBOOB DAWOOD SHIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
M P HOUSING BOARD VS. MANOJ SHRIVASTVA [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH MANAGER M P STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVLOPMENT CORPN LTD VS. S C PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD VS. SOMVIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. KAILA KUMAR PALIWAL [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HYDERABAD VS. P MARY MANORANJANI [REFERRED TO]
HEMANI MALHOTRA VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three Writ Petitions have been filed for quashing the appointment of Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 7 in the cadre of District Judge being the selection illegal, null & void and contrary to law and to reassess the merit of the candidates as per Rule 6(4) of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called the 'Rules, 2007') without fixing any cutoff marks in the interview and without reference to the condition stipulated in proviso to Clause C to Appendix - B of the Rules, 2007.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that a notification dated 4.4.2008 (Annex. -1) was issued inviting application for as many as 37 vacancies in the cadre of District Judge, out of which 22 vacancies had to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining vacancies to be filled up by the accelerated promotions of the Judicial Officers. Petitioners applied in pursuance of the said advertisement, appeared in the written test and vide notice dated 4.9.2008 they were declared successful and were asked to face the interview on the dates so fixed for them. Petitioners faced the interview and subsequently vide notification dated 28.09.2008 the final result was declared only making recommendation in favour of the five candidates i.e. the private Opposite Parties and High Court took a decision not to fill up the other vacancies for non -availability of suitable candidates. Hence these petitions.

(3.) WE have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners. It has been contended by them that the statutory rules providing for a cut -off marks for assessing the suitability of a candidate is illegal in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgments.

Click here to view full judgment.

PRIYABRATA SAHU Vs. STATE ORISSA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address