Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2003 (4) TMI 568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Synoptical resumption of the factual position, almost undisputed is as follows: On 1.6.2001 an advertisement to recruit 116 Munsif Magistrates was issued by the Commission; out of which 59, 24, 19 and 14 were earmarked for the General, OBC, SC and ST categories respectively. In terms of the scheme of the examination, only those candidates who obtained a minimum of 35 marks in each law paper and 40% in aggregate were eligible to be called for interview. For the posts in question, stipulation was that candidates numbering three times the number of posts adverised in each category were eligible to be called for interview. Commission issued interview letters to 302 candidates in respect of 116 vacancies. The shortfall was on account of non-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ission had to call 210 candidates by treating the number of posts available in the general category to be 70 (i.e. 59 as originally fixed and 11 on account of non-availability of candidates in SC & ST categories). The Division Bench accepted the stand, though the Commission pointed out that there is no provision in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules') unlike Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (in short the 'Higher Judicial Rules') which provides for a decision to be taken to fill up the posts from the general category or to de-reserve or carry forward in case of non-availability of candidates from the reserved categories. The directions given by the Division Bench in the impugned judgm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it has permitted the Commission to fill up only 59 vacancies in the general category and to carry forward the vacancies of Scheduled Tribes. It is not clear as to what useful purpose would be served by adopting dual procedure. It was pointed out by order dated 27.12.2001, this Court has permitted the Commission to complete the interview as scheduled and prepare and finalise the select list of 59 posts for the general category, 24 posts for OBC, 19 posts for Scheduled Castes and 3 posts for Scheduled Tribes, subject however, to the candidates that no select list shall be prepared and published for the remaining 11 posts of Scheduled Tribes which may be transferred to the general category, if the Government takes a decision to fill up these ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that they would be amongst the 210 candidates who were to be called for interview if the impugned judgment is maintained, we see no merit in the application for intervention. The same is rejected. 10. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the directions given by the High Court are contradictory in terms. Once it has been accepted by the High Court that it was open to the Government to decide as to whether the posts are to be de-reserved or carry forwarded, there was no basis to proceed on the assumption that they would be de- reserved, thereby making the number of posts available for the general category as 70. At the completion of the written examinations, there were only 59 posts available for the general category....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt in a three- judge Bench decision in State of Tripura vs. Tripura Bar Association and others 1998 (5) SCC 637 ) in the following words: "We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court which has delivered the impugned judgment being a co-ordinate Bench could not have taken a view different from that taken by the earlier Bench of the High Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha vs. Hon'ble Gauhati High Court (1988 (1) Gau LR 6). If the latter Bench wanted to take a view different than that taken by the earlier Bench, the proper course for them would have been to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We have perused the reasons given by the learned Judges for not referring the matter to a larger Bench. We are not ....