The Supreme Court has delivered a Judgment whereby held that “it is advisable to leave the award of marks, weightage to be given etc. to the authorities who are dealing with the issue. Otherwise, any interference by the Court would amount to trenching on the wisdom and expertise of the selecting authority leading to avoidable litigation and uncertainty of employment as far as the candidates are concerned”.
P.Thahira of Lakshadweep was appointed as Social Education Organiser on the basis of her qualification and she ranked as No.1 in the merit list basing upon her qualifications. It has been challenged by Kadeeja, who got 2nd Rank, before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application by holding that “the composite marks obtained by the candidates should be taken into consideration for making the selection”. Thahira preferred appeal before the High Court of Kerala, which also upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Against which, Thahira moved before the Apex Court. The Apex Court allowed her petition on the aforesaid ground and also held that “There also must be some adherence to the timelines held out to all candidates. In the present case, all the candidates were informed that if they had any objection to the check-list, they should file an objection before 1 p.m. on 26th May, 2011. Kadeeja did not file her objection within the prescribed time. As such, the Administration was fully justified in not considering her objection or rejecting it as being beyond the prescribed time. Adherence to such time limits, if not strictly followed, can again lead to uncertainties particularly if other candidates also start raising objections after the cut off date and providing some justification for the delay. In such circumstances, the process of selection would get bogged down and unduly prolonged which would neither serve the interest of the concerned institution nor the management of affairs of the institution”
Read the judgment hereSelection Committee is supreme
More Stories
The Court is not bound to follow statute or rules of evidence while deciding the custody of a Child and the only consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child- Supreme Court Reiterated
When the Agreement specifies particular type/mode of constitution of Arbitral Tribunal, the same should be followed in strict sense- Supreme Court clarified.
The Hospital is vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by the Doctors engaged or empanelled to provide medical care- Supreme Court Ruled