Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 146 (5.13 seconds)
Documents citing B. Ramanjini & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 26 April, 2002

Ku. Pratibha Singh (Minor) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 11 April, 2014

22. It is perhaps keeping in mind the aforesaid principles that this Court in the case of B. Ramanjini and others Vs. State of A.P. and others, 2002 (3) SLJ 28 (SC) = 2002 (5) SCC 533, indicated that a decision taken by the competent authority on the basis of relevant material ought not to be lightly interfered with by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. In Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court observed as follows:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

Desh Raj Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 22 November, 2024

(viii) In absence of any such cogent material and reasons, the order impugned in the writ petition cancelling the examination and holding fresh examinations are per se arbitrary and suffers from the vice of ipse-dixit. The State Authorities while taking a decision to cancel the examination and holding a fresh examination did not adhere to the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in Sachin Kumar (supra); B. Ramanjini (supra) and Joseph P. Cherian.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Nidhi Kaim vs State Of M P And Ors Etc on 12 May, 2016

38) In the fifth case of B. Ramanjini & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 533, the facts of the case were that the State authorities had cancelled the examination held for selecting secondary school teachers after noticing certain complaints of "mass copying" found to have been done by the candidates in the examination in respect of Anantapur District.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - J Chelameswar - Full Document

N Shivashankara vs D/O Personnel &Amp Training on 20 December, 2019

23. Also in B. Ramanjini and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, [(2002) 5 SCC 533 at pages 542-543, paragraph 19] where selection of certain teachers was challenged without impleading them, this Court held, "Selection process had commenced long back as early as in 1998 and it had been completed. The persons selected were appointed pursuant to the selections made and had been performing their duties. However, the selected candidates had not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings either in their individual capacity or in any representative capacity. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have examined any of the questions raised before it in the proceedings initiated before it. The writ petitions filed by the respondents concerned ought to have been dismissed which are more or less in the nature of a public interest litigation."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 259 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aparna Ajith vs Anu Jayapal on 29 June, 2022

The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appointees in support of their contention that all the appointees pursuant to Ext.P8 notification should have been arrayed as parties to the writ petition is the decision of the Apex Court in B.Ramanjini (supra). It is seen that it is clarified in the said decision also that the principle laid down therein may not have any application in a case involving public interest.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - P B Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next