Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 991 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986

Awadhesh Kumar Yadav vs General Manager, N E Rly on 6 February, 2026

In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (AIR 1986 SC 1043) it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nand Lal Luhar vs Western Railway on 16 July, 2024

10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Karuna Nidhan Upadhya & Another vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Higher ... on 23 April, 2012

10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee."
Allahabad High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sri Santosh Kumar Aged About 44 Years vs Union Of India on 31 March, 2011

In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986) Supp 285 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tapas Mishra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 January, 2024

3. Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043, the 5 Court observed that, "Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kota Nagamani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 19 June, 2014

8. In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly participated in the selection process for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer issued through the impugned notification vide Rc.No.179/12 C, dated 09-02-2012 both in the written test as well as oral interview. Since she was not selected as fair price shop dealer, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Though the petitioner challenged G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19-02-2011, which prescribed procedure for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers, the petitioner has not challenged the notification in Rc.No.179/12 C, dated 09-02-2012 in which 50% marks were earmarked for interview. As on the date of oral test and interview, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19- 02-2011 holds the field prescribing the procedure for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers. Having participated in the selection process, without any protest, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the same and the petitioner is estopped from challenging the said procedure as laid down by the Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others (10 supra) and in Madan Lal and others v. State of J & K and others (11 supra) wherein it is held as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A R Reddy - Full Document

M.S.Vijay Anand vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 29 September, 2009

10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a court of appeal and try to reassess the relative merits of the candidates concerned who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee".
Madras High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Dr. R. Murali vs Dr. R. Kamalakkannan And Three Others on 1 October, 1999

39. Following the decision in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 SCC (Supp) 285, in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, , their Lordships held thus, "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view that salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Sumit Jairam Kode vs M/O Defence on 27 July, 2018

29. The respondents have referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.(supra); Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.(supra), and Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors.(surpa) by which it has been held that having consciously taken part in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot later gain a right to challenge the criteria or the process of selection including the advertisement and the methodology and in that sense, as summarised in the decision, there is an estoppel which operates against the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P Ramakrishna vs East Coast Railway on 30 January, 2024

"In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla (1986) Supp 285 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next