RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. versus HARISH KUMAR PUROHIT AND ORS.

RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR. versus HARISH KUMAR PUROHIT AND ORS.

High Court was incorrect in directing the Commission to call candidates for interview based on an assumed increase in general category vacancies; directions were illogical and contradictory since only the government could decide on de-reservation or carry forward of vacancies, and only 59 posts in general category...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Rajasthan Public Service Commission; Respondent: Harish Kumar Purohit; Appellant: Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission; Respondent: Devilal Mothsra; Advocate: Manish Kumar; Advocate: Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary; Advocate: Ms. Sandhya Goswami; Advocate: Ms. Shobha
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Recruitment, Reservation Policy, Carry Forward of Vacancies, Judicial Propriety
Service Law Judicial Recruitment Reservation Policy Carry Forward of Vacancies Judicial Propriety

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Appellant

Harish Kumar Purohit

Respondent

Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Appellant

Devilal Mothsra

Respondent

Manish Kumar

Advocate

Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary

Advocate

Ms. Sandhya Goswami

Advocate

Ms. Shobha

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Rajasthan High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether general category candidates can fill reserved category vacancies due to non-availability of reserved category candidates
  2. 2 Whether High Court's direction to call extra candidates for interview based on hypothetical vacancy increase is logical
  3. 3 Whether High Court can take a contrary view from co-ordinate Bench without reference to a larger Bench

Ratio Decidendi

High Court was incorrect in directing the Commission to call candidates for interview based on an assumed increase in general category vacancies; directions were illogical and contradictory since only the government could decide on de-reservation or carry forward of vacancies, and only 59 posts in general category were actually available.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court judgment nullified
  • Applications for intervention rejected