TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the private respondent was entitled to 10 marks under the BPL category on the basis that her family name stood in the BPL ration card prior to the advertisement date, and whether the authorities erred in treating the BPL criteria as satisfied.
Analysis: The eligibility clause and the subsequent clarification were read to mean that the benefit of 10 marks was available where the candidate herself or, in the alternative, her family members were shown in the BPL list before the advertisement date. On that interpretation, the mention of the husband and father-in-law in the BPL ration card was sufficient. The Court also held that the reasoning in the cited precedent on cut-off date did not assist the petitioner on the facts, because the relevant BPL status was already existing prior to the advertisement.
Conclusion: The challenge to the award of 10 BPL marks failed, and the impugned orders upholding the private respondent's selection were sustained.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, and the selection dispute was resolved against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a selection scheme grants marks to a candidate or her family if the family is shown in the BPL list before the advertisement date, the existence of that family entry satisfies the eligibility condition.
TaxTMI 
