SSC GD 2018 Court Case Latest News:
The SSC GD 2018 Court Case has been a topic of significant interest and concern among candidates and the general public alike. This article aims to delve into the latest developments, ramifications, and implications surrounding this case, shedding light on its impact and future outlook.
Understanding the SSC GD 2018 Court Case
The SSC GD 2018 Court Case revolves around allegations of irregularities and malpractices in the recruitment process for the General Duty (GD) Constable post conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in 2018. Candidates have raised concerns about transparency and fairness, leading to legal proceedings and investigations.
Recent Developments
In recent months, there have been notable developments in the case, including hearings, testimonies, and evidence presentations. Key updates from the courtroom provide insights into the progress of the case and its potential outcomes.
Impact on Candidates
The prolonged legal battle has taken a toll on the thousands of aspirants who appeared for the SSC GD 2018 examination. Uncertainty regarding the validity of the recruitment process has left candidates anxious about their future prospects and career aspirations.
Legal Ramifications
Court decisions regarding the SSC GD 2018 case have far-reaching consequences for both the Staff Selection Commission and the candidates involved. Rulings on the legitimacy of the examination process and the validity of results will shape the future of recruitment procedures.
Public Reaction
The SSC GD 2018 Court Case has elicited varied responses from the public, with some expressing solidarity with the affected candidates, while others emphasize the need for accountability and transparency in government examinations.
Future Implications
The outcome of the SSC GD 2018 Court Case carries significant implications for future recruitment processes conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and other government agencies. It will set a precedent for addressing allegations of malpractice and ensuring fairness in examinations.
Expert Analysis
Legal experts and scholars have provided valuable insights into the complexities of the SSC GD 2018 Court Case, analyzing legal precedents, procedural irregularities, and potential resolutions. Their expertise sheds light on the nuances of the case and its broader implications.
High Court asks Centre to fill SSB, CAPF vacancies advertised in 2016, 2018
The Delhi High Court directed the Centre on Wednesday to fill the vacancies for various posts in the Sashatra Seema Bal (SSB) and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), which were advertised in 2016 and 2018 respectively, and offer appointment to the candidates within four weeks. The high court said the selected candidates shall be appointed with notional seniority but without back wages.
The high court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking direction to the authorities to fill up the leftover vacancies in order of their merit for the posts of Sub-Inspector, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Head Constable in the SSB and Constables in CAPF.
Two separate tests had been conducted-one for appointments in the SSB in 2016 and another for all the Central Armed Police Forces. The SSB is one of the seven CAPFs in the country. The others are: Assam Rifles, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, NSG and CISF.
The petitioners, who were seeking direction for filling up vacancies in the SSB, said the authorities had advertised 872 posts in 2016 and the results were declared after three years in 2019. Out of the 746 vacancies for the post of head constable, 674 were filled and 72 were pending.
Regarding the advertisement for filling up vacancies in the whole of CAPFs, the petitioners said out of the 60,210 posts advertised, 55,912 candidates were selected. About 4,000 posts could not be filled due to non-availability of eligible candidates.
A bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said it finds hiring those among the leftover aspirants will not only benefit meritorious candidates to get appointment against the unfilled seats but it is also in the interest of the authorities as it will help them do away with conducting another exhausting and laborious recruitment process pertaining to vacancies advertised in 2016 and 2018.
"It has already been held that mere selection does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate for appointment; however, it has also been held that if the posts advertised are lying vacant, appointments can be made through wait/panel list and in the absence of panel list/ wait list, any seat lying vacant due to non-joining of a candidate or leftover vacancy, can also be filled from candidates who meet the selection criteria," the court said.
It noted that the 2016 and 2018 advertisements show that specific criteria for selection and appointment have been laid down.
The bench said the respondents had not mentioned with regard to the panel list/wait list in the event of seats lying vacant but had clearly stated the criteria for selection and appointment.
"We direct the respondents to fill the unfilled vacancies having arisen due to non-joining of candidates as well as left over seats for the examination of the year 2016 conducted by the SSB and examination of the year 2018 conducted by the CAPF; in order of merit, category and domicile of the candidates; who meet the criteria mentioned in the respective advertisements, if not already filled," the bench said.
The counsel for the authorities submitted that in the process of recruitment, a large number of candidates were required to be shortlisted for appointment and the process, therefore, was time consuming. It was wrong to allege that the respondents carried out their process at a snail's pace, the lawyer said.
They also claimed the petitions lacked merit and deserved to be dismissed.
Post a Comment