Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DR. KASHINATH NAGAYYA IBATTE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided
31 March 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 115 · 1995 INSC 240
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph

Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.

p. 116, margin B

Unnumbered paragraph

The appellant being a Scheduled Tribe candidate was appointed initially in 1981 to a vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and thereafter he had been continuously working as a Lecturer till 1993. It is also on record that he is a specialist in Anatomy and Surgery. As regards his qualifications and eligibility and experience to hold the post, the Government has not, in fairness, disputed. The only dispute is whether he could be allowed to continue in service, when candidates selected and appointed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) are available for appointment?

p. 116, margin B

Unnumbered paragraph

It is settled law that temporary candidates working on ad hoc basis have to give place to the candidates selected by the PSC and appointed by the Government,. in accordance with rules. It is not in dispute that the appellant appeared for selection in three vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes but he was not among three candidates selected. The respondents who are appointed in the vacancies are the candidates selected by the PSC and recommended for appointment. The Government has appointed them on a regular basis. Under those circumstances, the appellant has to give place to the candidates regularly selected and appointed.

p. 116, margin D

Unnumbered paragraph

It is, however, not in dispute that at present, there are 22 vacancies existing which are yet to be filled in. Under these circumstances, it would be open to the Government to conSider the case of the appellant and take the service of the appellant who had put in more than 12 years of service in one of the unfilled posts, of course, subject to the selection by the PSC. By the date of selection, if he becomes barred by age, the Government is directed to suitably relax his age and consider him for appointment according to rules.

p. 116, margin F

Unnumbered paragraph

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.

p. 116, margin G