TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Central Admin Tribunal's Order for Fresh Selection Process</h1> <h3>Arun Kumar Nayak Versus Union of India & Ors</h3> Arun Kumar Nayak Versus Union of India & Ors - 2006) 8 SCC 111 Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are related to the appointment process of an Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (EDSPM) and the validity of the selection process based on the requisition made to the Employment Exchange and the subsequent public notification inviting applications.Appointment Process:The controversy in this case revolves around the appointment of an Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (EDSPM) at Ratnagiri, now known as 'Gramin Dak Sewak.' The process began with a requisition made to the local Employment Exchange, specifying preference for ST/SC candidates. Subsequently, a public notification was issued inviting applications, with specific guidelines on the selection process in case of a deficiency in ST candidates. The appellant applied as an OBC candidate, following the prescribed format and submitting necessary documents.Selection Process Mockery:Out of the 40 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, only 7 submitted their applications, leading to the elimination of 33 candidates. Further, out of the remaining 7 candidates, 6 were disqualified for not providing all necessary documents. Ultimately, only the 4th respondent was considered and selected, with the selection process being deemed a mockery by the Tribunal. The appellant and others who applied pursuant to the advertisement were eliminated based on the argument that the public notification was unnecessary.Tribunal's Decision and High Court's Ruling:The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the selection process, directing a fresh selection considering all applications on merit. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the selection process and lack of fair play. The High Court, however, set aside the Tribunal's order and confirmed the appointment of the 4th respondent, citing government instructions and previous court decisions. The Supreme Court, after considering relevant precedents, set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing the mandatory nature of intimation to the Employment Exchange and the need for fair play in the selection process.Conclusion:The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, reinstating the Tribunal's order to conduct a fresh selection process. The Court highlighted the importance of fair play, equal opportunity, and wider circulation of vacancy notices to attract the best candidates. The appellant, who belonged to the OBC category, was ultimately selected in the fresh selection process, emphasizing the need for adherence to selection procedures and principles of equality in employment opportunities.
TaxTMI 