https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459897 The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the selection process for the Deputy Director (Law) at the CCI adhered to the legal framework. It ruled that the introduction of a minimum aggregate marks requirement was permissible and not arbitrary, as it did not disqualify any eligible candidates. The court emphasized that eligibility for an interview does not equate to a right to appointment, supporting the appointing authority's discretion to set additional standards if applied uniformly. The petitioners' arguments were found to lack merit, and no entitlement to appointment was established based solely on interview eligibility. en-us Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:38:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459897 The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the selection process for the Deputy Director (Law) at the CCI adhered to the legal framework. It ruled that the introduction of a minimum aggregate marks requirement was permissible and not arbitrary, as it did not disqualify any eligible candidates. The court emphasized that eligibility for an interview does not equate to a right to appointment, supporting the appointing authority's discretion to set additional standards if applied uniformly. The petitioners' arguments were found to lack merit, and no entitlement to appointment was established based solely on interview eligibility. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459897