Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1797 (2.52 seconds)
Documents citing Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980

Bhuvan Goel vs Punjab And Haryana High Court And ... on 9 January, 2025

81. The above opinion in Lila Dhar [Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 588] makes it clear that the ratio in Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] , in the context of college admission, may not have much bearing on recruitment for judicial vacancies where oral interviews play an important role to test the personality and calibre of the aspirant to judicial posts."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr Jitarani Udgata vs Union Of India & Anr. on 17 October, 2022

30. On the same day that the decision in Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] was pronounced came the decision of Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 449 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 200 : AIR 1981 SC 212] . Here too, the reasoning in Ramana [(1979) 3 SCC 489 : AIR 1979 SC 1628] was followed and Bharat Petroleum Corporation was held to be a "State" within the "enlarged meaning of Article 12". SabhajitTewary [(1975) 1 SCC 485 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 99 : (1975) 3 SCR 616 : AIR 1975 SC 1329] was criticised and distinguished as being limited to the facts of the case. It was said : (SCC p. 473, para 43) "The rulings relied on are, unfortunately, in the province of Article 311 and it is clear that a body may be „State‟ under Part III but not under Part XIV. Ray, C.J., rejected the argument that merely because the Prime Minister was the President or that the other members were appointed and removed by Government did not make the Society a „State‟.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

K.G.K. Prabha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By ... on 25 March, 1992

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , the Supreme Court has held that the allocation of above 15 per cent of the total marks for interview was arbitrary and unreasonable. The case before me is not a written test-cum-oral interview. It is purely an oral interview, wherein 40 marks have been awarded and guidelines have been fixed by the Government as to how the marks should have been awarded under each head. So I am not able to see that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases will apply to the facts of this case. In all the abovementioned cases, a written test was there, apart from oral interview. In that context, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that a viva voce test fixing certain per cent age of marks is unreasonable. It is not the case here.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Subramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 November, 2019

20.The very same selection was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.15913 of 2017. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 69/74 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.29313, 29709, 31303, 31725, 31803, 31889, 32007, 32136, 32218 of 2019 11.07.2017. Against the order of dismissal, W.A.No.1085 of 2017 was preferred by the petitioners therein. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 11.09.2017 (wherein I was also one of the Member) clearly held that decision in Ajay Hasia's case is made applicable to the case on hand. It is further held that criteria stated supra is to all the candidates who have applied for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for appointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges. Appellants/writ petitioners have no right to insist that selection should be made through competitive examination, in consonance with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Prescription of educational qualifications and method of selection is purely the prerogative of the appointing authority. In the case on hand, all the candidates are treated equally and their inter se merit is decided on the basis of their teaching experience, educational qualifications and interview. Process of selection is not arbitrary. As rightly observed by the writ Court, likelihood of unfairness in the matter of selection, cannot be a ground for a candidate, to suggest a different mode of selection, than the one prescribed by the TRB, the authority constituted for recruitment. There is no manifest error in the order, warranting interference. Thus, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the scheme of selection.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

Varia Jayeshkumar Bilindrabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 March, 2020

Therefore, the ratio of the decsions in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 1 SCC 38 : (AIR 1971 SC 2303) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Page 36 of 38 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 05 04:33:13 IST 2020 C/SCA/3252/2018 CAV JUDGMENT Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : (AIR 1981 SC 487), in this regard, cannot be applied in case of services to which recruitment has necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview test may be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied."
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Atul Kumar Rai And 11 Others vs Utility Powertech Limited And 4 Others on 9 September, 2025

(2) The tests laid down in Ajay Hasia case [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722] are relevant for the purpose of determining whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Neither all the tests are required to be answered in the positive nor a positive answer to one or two tests would suffice. It will depend upon a combination of one or more of the relevant factors depending upon the essentiality and overwhelming nature of such factors in identifying the real source of governing power, if need be by removing the mask or piercing the veil disguising the entity concerned. When an entity has an independent legal existence, before it is held to be the State, the person alleging it to be so must satisfy the court of brooding presence of the Government or deep and pervasive control of the Government so as to hold it to be an instrumentality or agency of the State."
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha And Ors vs Manohar Parrikar Institute For Defence ... on 16 April, 2024

There is nothing special about such a provision in the memorandum of association of CSIR as such a provision is a general one applicable to all societies under Section 14 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. True that there is some element of control of the Government but not a deep and pervasive control. To some extent, it may be said that the Government's presence or participation is felt in the Society but such presence cannot be called a brooding presence or the overlordship of the Government. We are satisfied that the tests in Ajay Hasia case [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5864/2021 & 7487/2021 Page 35 of 49 Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:19.04.2024 15:37:14 Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] are not substantially or on essential aspects even satisfied to call CSIR an instrumentality or agency of the State. A mere governmental patronage, encouragement, push or recognition would not make an entity ―the State‖
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Mrs. Asha vs Manohar Parrikar Institute For Defence ... on 16 April, 2024

There is nothing special about such a provision in the memorandum of association of CSIR as such a provision is a general one applicable to all societies under Section 14 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. True that there is some element of control of the Government but not a deep and pervasive control. To some extent, it may be said that the Government's presence or participation is felt in the Society but such presence cannot be called a brooding presence or the overlordship of the Government. We are satisfied that the tests in Ajay Hasia case [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5864/2021 & 7487/2021 Page 35 of 49 Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:19.04.2024 15:37:14 Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] are not substantially or on essential aspects even satisfied to call CSIR an instrumentality or agency of the State. A mere governmental patronage, encouragement, push or recognition would not make an entity ―the State‖
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next