Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (1.20 seconds)

Union Of India vs Gopal Meena on 10 August, 2022

Reference was also made to Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab & Ors.10, S.B. Mathur & Ors. v. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Ors. 11 and Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. v. V. Chrysolite12 to contend that limiting the zone of consideration and shortlisting the 9 (2021) 11 SCC 401 10 (1999) 7 SCC 209 11 1989 Supp (1) SCC 34 12 (2013) 16 SCC 702 12 candidates has to be reasonable, non-arbitrary, rational and having a nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Anshuman Bramhchari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2023

"19. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the High Court is erroneous. The preliminary examination for shortlisting candidates who would be eligible to take the Rule 3 examinations has no statutory basis. Neither the Kerala S&S Rules nor the Rules of Procedure contemplate such preliminary examination. However, this Court recognised [A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath, (2009) 5 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 999] , [Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma v. V. Chrysolite, (2013) 16 SCC 702 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 277] existence of a legal authority to conduct a preliminary examination wherever an unmanageably large number of applications are received for filling up a limited number of posts. Rule 14(e) of the Kerala S&S Rules and Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure relied upon by the High Court refer to "ranked list" -- a defined expression under Rule 2(g) of the 5 W.P.No.15906/2023 Rules of Procedure. Such "ranked list" is prepared only pursuant to the Rule 3 examinations. A preliminary screening test is outside the purview of the Rule 3 examinations. Therefore, irrespective of the content of Rule 14(e) of the Kerala S&S Rules or the third proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure relied upon by the High Court, these Rules can have no application in the context of preparation of a "shortlist" pursuant to a preliminary examination."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Dalbir Singh And Another vs N on 20 February, 2014

28. In the case in hand, no rules or instructions have been cited by learned counsel for the Board, which specify the criteria to be adopted for shortlisting. In the absence thereof, this court has to see the reasonableness thereof and also whether it has the nexus with the object sought to be achieved. As has already been noticed above, the shortlisting Kumar Manoj 2014.03.06 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 8923 of 2012 [25] was to the extent of 63 times the number of posts. The criteria adopted was minimum 33% marks obtained by the candidates in the test. Considering the number of posts and the candidates shortlisted, the same cannot be justified on the touch-stone of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, as the same has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which always has to be merit. It has been consistently opined that shortlisting has to be 3 to 5 times of the number of vacancies, hence, the criteria adopted for shortlisting the candidates is found to be erroneous. Once the first step adopted by the recruiting agency in the process of selection is found to be erroneous, the very foundation goes and as a result the selection will also fall flat, as the number of candidates who have been finally selected fall far beyond five times the number of vacancies, as is evident from the pattern of marks awarded for practical experience and interview, whose qualification was only matric with no experience.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Dr. Narote Amol Sadashivrao vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2014

local bodies in service candidates, though they are also under Supervision of IMC Act and regulations. The selection process, by which Post-Graduate Degree avenue is excluded totally from consideration by adopting wrong and vague methodology, such change in policy cannot be accepted. It prevents the entry of such medical officers to the Post-Graduate course itself. (Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. Vs. V. Chrysolite) 7 .
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Dr. Narote Amol Sadashivrao vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2014

local bodies in service candidates, though they are also under Supervision of IMC Act and regulations. The selection process, by which Post-Graduate Degree avenue is excluded totally from consideration by adopting wrong and vague methodology, such change in policy cannot be accepted. It prevents the entry of such medical officers to the Post-Graduate course itself. (Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. Vs. V. Chrysolite) 7 .
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Dr. Narote Amol Sadashivrao vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2014

local bodies in service candidates, though they are also under Supervision of IMC Act and regulations. The selection process, by which Post-Graduate Degree avenue is excluded totally from consideration by adopting wrong and vague methodology, such change in policy cannot be accepted. It prevents the entry of such medical officers to the Post-Graduate course itself. (Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. Vs. V. Chrysolite) 7 .
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Dr. Narote Amol Sadashivrao vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2014

local bodies in service candidates, though they are also under Supervision of IMC Act and regulations. The selection process, by which Post-Graduate Degree avenue is excluded totally from consideration by adopting wrong and vague methodology, such change in policy cannot be accepted. It prevents the entry of such medical officers to the Post-Graduate course itself. (Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma & Ors. Vs. V. Chrysolite) 7 .
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next