[Sanjay Kumar And Others vs . The State Of Jharkhand And Others] on 12 September, 2018
In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v.
Union of India it was observed: (SCC pp. 180-81, para
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.75 seconds)Chhanda Koley vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 13 September, 2018
34. The learned Judge erroneously held that the record note dated
July 15, 2015 had retrospective effect on and from 2009 and as such the
respondent no. 9 was entitled to offer alternate land, without considering
that once the procedure for award of LPG distributorship had started and a
candidate has been selected at the Draw-on-Lots, subsequent record note
relaxing the eligibility criteria cannot be permitted as the same was
arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. On the issue that the rules of the game
cannot be changed after the game was played or completed, reference may
be drawn to the decision in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India
reported in (1984) 2 SCC 141, wherein the Apex Court was considering the
validity of a selection process under the ICAR Rules, 1977 which provided
for minimum marks only in the written examination and did not envisage
obtaining minimum marks in the interview. But the Recruitment Board
(ASRB) prescribed a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in
the interview also. The Apex Court observed that the power to prescribe
minimum marks in the interview should be explicit and cannot be read by
implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is
likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. The Apex Court held that
as there was no power under the rules for the Selection Board to prescribe
the additional qualification of securing minimum marks in the interview, the
restriction was impermissible and had a direct impact on the merit list
because the merit list was to be prepared according to the aggregate marks
obtained by the candidates at the written test and interview.
Sri Jayanta Choudhury vs The State Of Tripura on 29 June, 2018
While deciding the case of
K.Manjusree (Supra) the Court noticed the decisions in
(1) P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC
141; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985)
3 SCC 721; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of
Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646, and has thereafter laid down
the proposition of law which is quoted above.
Surjith P vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 20 February, 2018
Shri Thomas Mathew further referred to P.K.Ramachandra Iyer vs. Union of
India - 1984 (2) SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC
721 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa - (1987) 4 SCC 646 wherein it was
held by the apex court that it had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks
which a candidate had to secure and that the selection committee does not possess
any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed in
the rules.
Ram Janak Maurya And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic ... on 1 November, 2018
This Court in the case of Manjusree (supra) relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141], Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Others [(1985) 3 SCC 721] and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646].
J Shiva Kumar vs Southern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 11 December, 2018
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.
D Maruthi vs The Telangana State Southern Power ... on 11 December, 2018
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.
Anandam Bollam vs Southern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 11 December, 2018
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.
J. Adapa vs Southern Power Dist Co. Of Telangana Ltd on 11 December, 2018
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.
Chowhan Vindu vs The State Of Telangana on 11 December, 2018
was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after
the game was played which is impermissible. It followed the
judgments in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer Vs. Union of India7, Umesh
Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India8 and Durgacharan Misra Vs.
State of Orissa9.