Supreme Court of India
MADHUKAR BAKRU PINGAL versus SHRI RAJENDRA D. GAIKWAD AND ORS.
- Decided
- 13 September 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 627 · 1995 INSC 567
- Also cited as
- (1995) 6 SCC 42
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- 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.
On July 27, 1992 applications were invited to fill up the post of Police Patil in the village Ambe, Dindori Taluk of Nasik District. Five persons had applied for the recruitment. The appellant was selected and was appointed as the Police Patil. On challenge being made by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the appointment order of the appellant. The Tribunal observed that 50% of marks were reserved for written examination and 50% marks were for viva-voce and held that the prescription of 50% of marks for viva-voce is arbitrary as per the law laid down by this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside ~e appointment of the appellant and directed to appoint the respondent. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
p. 628, margin C
Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that even assuming .that prescription of 50% of marks for viva- voce is invalid the appropriate course would have been that a direction w~s given to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to prescribe lesser marks for viva-voce and higher marks for written eXamination and to direct conducting examinations of the candidates who had applied for afresh and. considering the cases of the candidates according to law. We find force in the contentioµ. The Tribunal, instead, has given direction to appoint Respondent No. 1 who was not selected by the appointing authority. Under the interim direction, the appellant is continuing in service and would continue till a candidate is duly selected and appointed.
p. 628, margin D
In these circumstances, we set aside the direction issued by the Tribunal to appoint the contesting respondent No. 1 as Police Patil. Instead the offici~l respondents are directed to conduct written examination and
p. 628, margin G
M.B. PINGAL v. R.D. GAIKWAD 629 viva-voce test allocating 85% and 15% of marks respectively and consider the cases of all those candidates who appeared at the initial examination and make selection according to rules.
p. 629
The appeal is accordingly allowed'. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
p. 629, margin A