Service Law

Recruitment process

— Eligibility — Qualification/Experience — Qualifications — Preferential qualification — Interpretation — Post of Medical Officer of Homeopathy — Selection based on oral interview and marks awarded on qualifications — Requisite qualification mentioned in advertisement as per R. 8 of U.P. Homeopathic Medical Services Rules was degree or diploma in Homeopathy but proviso thereto added that preference would be given to degree-holders — Held, this meant that although both the degree and diploma-holders were equally eligible to compete, where some of them were assessed to be equally positioned, then only the degree-holders would be preferred over the diploma-holders while preparing the merit list — This would not mean that the degree-holders would be preferred en bloc over the diploma-holders irrespective of their inter se merit and suitability, (2006) 6 SCC 474-A

Service Law

Recruitment process

— Panel/Select list/Reserve list/Waiting list/Merit list/Rank list — Merit list — Inclusion of a candidate's name therein — Does not confer any indefeasible right to be appointed, (2006) 6 SCC 474-B

Constitution of India

— Arts. 136 and 226 — Res judicata — In the batch of writ petitions, main judgment delivered by Division Bench of High Court, having not been assailed by appellants, attained finality — Instead, subsequent order of the High Court following the main judgment was appealed against before Supreme Court — Supreme Court held that High Court had misdirected itself by issuing the subsequent order and directions and accordingly quashed and set aside the same — In this situation, contention that High Court's main judgment and order having attained finality, the present appeals against the subsequent order of the High Court following the same decision must also be dismissed, held, cannot be accepted as adhering to such contention would amount to allowing perpetuation of illegality — Further contention that since the main judgment of High Court was followed in the subsequent order, which in the present appeals held by Supreme Court to be illegal, the main judgment should also be set aside, cannot be accepted — Firstly, the main judgment had not been appealed against and had been implemented and attained finality and secondly, the petitioners, in the main writ petitions allowed by High Court, are not before Supreme Court, (2006) 6 SCC 474-C