REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Amar Nath Rana Appellant

V/S

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MADAN LAL V. STATE OF J AND K [REFERRED TO]
SHRI BHAJAN DASS KAITH VS. H.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MANAK LAL ADVOCATE VS. PREM CHAND SINGHVI [REFERRED TO]
DAL AT ABASAHEB SOLUNKE VS. DRB S MAHAJAN [REFERRED TO]
MINOR A PEERIAKARUPPAN SOBHA JOSEPH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
G SARANA VS. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN LATA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
LILA DHAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [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]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. SHAKTI RAJ [REFERRED TO]
MARRIPATI NAGARAJA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
M V THIMMAIAH VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
SADANANDA HALO VS. MOMTAZALI SHEIKH [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJAY MALIK VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
AMLAN JYOTI BOROOAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
K A NAGAMANI VS. INDIAN AIRLINES [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the appointment of private respondents No. 3 to 15 to the post of Assistant District Attorneys in the department of Prosecution on the sole ground that no such appointment could have been made merely on the basis of the marks obtained by a candidate in personal interview and without adding the marks obtained in screening test. The advertisement is Annexure P-1 and thereby the second respondent had advertised 15 posts (Gen-07, Gen. Ex. SM-03, SC Ex. SM-01, ST-02 and OBC-02) of Assistant District Attorneys. The petitioner had also participated in the process leading to selection to the posts in question from OBC category.

(2.) The 'Himachal Pradesh, Prosecution Department, Assistant District Attorney, Class-I (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2009' are Annexure R-1 to the reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. As per these Rules, the mode of recruitment to the post in question is direct and the minimum Education and other qualification required for such recruitment are prescribed under Rule 7, which reads as under:--

(3.) The 2nd respondent is the Agency to make recruitment to the post in question as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules ibid, which reads as under:--

Click here to view full judgment.

AMAR NATH RANA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address