Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 403 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008

Sri N Mahesha vs The Registrar General on 26 July, 2019

(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] as well as in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203] . In my view once the petitioner was declared as the lone candidate having passed in the written examination, it matters little whether minimum marks for interview were introduced before or after calling him for interview. The 40 petitioner or any other person in his place, knowing fully well that there was no separate cut-off or pass mark for the viva voce, would not feel any pressure to be extra ready for the interview. In order to ensure fairness, after the Full Court decision on 12-1-2015 to fix 40% as pass marks for viva voce, the petitioner ought to have been informed of this development, at least when intimation of date of interview was communicated to him through letter dated 29-1-2015. Since the viva voce was held on 12-2-2015, he would have got some time to improve his preparations to meet the 40% cut-off newly introduced. That was not done. In such circumstances, I do not find any material, reason or circumstance to distinguish the case of K. Manjusree [K. Manjusreev. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

P.Senthil Kumaran vs The Registrar General on 11 March, 2011

(t) While narrating the recommendations of the Honble Justice Shetty Commission, as to how viva-voce test should be a thorough process, the Supreme Court in Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi (2008 AIR SCW 3205) dealt with a case, where minimum marks were prescribed for viva-voce after written examination was conducted, and held that if, before taking of the written examination, such minimum marks were not prescribed for viva-voce, such prescription subsequent to the written examination would amount to additional requirement, which is not permissible.
Madras High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sapna Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 1 March, 2024

26. On a compendious consideration of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. N. Nagarajan (Supra), as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. (Supra), N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. (Supra), P. Mahendran & Ors. (Supra), Hemani Malhotra (supra), K. Manjusree (Supra), Tamil Nadu Computer Science BED Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) (supra), Md. Raisul Islam & Ors (supra) and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. (Supra), this Court finds that it is now a well settled law that a candidate has the right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement, as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right of being considered for selection is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement and he cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 65/69 pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature and moreover, rules of the game cannot be permitted to be changed during the selection process or when it is over, either it be with regard to the eligibility criteria or the procedure of recruitment/selection, hence this Court holds that the notice dated 19.09.2023, to the extent it changes the procedure of recruitment/selection is arbitrary and unjustified, thus the notification dated 19.09.2023, to the extent it has changed the procedure of recruitment as provided for in the Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022, is quashed and the respondent- Commission is directed to publish the merit list by tabulating the marks of the candidates, including the writ petitioners, as per the procedure for recruitment provided for in clause-4 of the said Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Anita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 1 March, 2024

26. On a compendious consideration of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. N. Nagarajan (Supra), as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. (Supra), N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. (Supra), P. Mahendran & Ors. (Supra), Hemani Malhotra (supra), K. Manjusree (Supra), Tamil Nadu Computer Science BED Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) (supra), Md. Raisul Islam & Ors (supra) and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. (Supra), this Court finds that it is now a well settled law that a candidate has the right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement, as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right of being considered for selection is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement and he cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 65/69 pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature and moreover, rules of the game cannot be permitted to be changed during the selection process or when it is over, either it be with regard to the eligibility criteria or the procedure of recruitment/selection, hence this Court holds that the notice dated 19.09.2023, to the extent it changes the procedure of recruitment/selection is arbitrary and unjustified, thus the notification dated 19.09.2023, to the extent it has changed the procedure of recruitment as provided for in the Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022, is quashed and the respondent- Commission is directed to publish the merit list by tabulating the marks of the candidates, including the writ petitioners, as per the procedure for recruitment provided for in clause-4 of the said Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

Archana Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 1 March, 2024

26. On a compendious consideration of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. N. Nagarajan (Supra), as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. (Supra), N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. (Supra), P. Mahendran & Ors. (Supra), Hemani Malhotra (supra), K. Manjusree (Supra), Tamil Nadu Computer Science BED Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) (supra), Md. Raisul Islam & Ors (supra) and Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. (Supra), this Court finds that it is now a well settled law that a candidate has the right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement, as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, a candidate acquires a vested right of being considered for selection is accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement and he cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the Patna High Court CWJC No.14755 of 2023 dt.01-03-2024 65/69 pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature and moreover, rules of the game cannot be permitted to be changed during the selection process or when it is over, either it be with regard to the eligibility criteria or the procedure of recruitment/selection, hence this Court holds that the notice dated 19.09.2023, to the extent it changes the procedure of recruitment/selection is arbitrary and unjustified, thus the notification dated 19.09.2023, to the extent it has changed the procedure of recruitment as provided for in the Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022, is quashed and the respondent- Commission is directed to publish the merit list by tabulating the marks of the candidates, including the writ petitioners, as per the procedure for recruitment provided for in clause-4 of the said Advertisement No. 07 of 2022 dated 28.07.2022.
Patna High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Yojana Shriniwa Kulkarni on 22 December, 2023

75. Therefore, there is fundamental distinction between the principle laid down in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] and followed in Hemani Malhotra [Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203] on one hand and the situation in the present case on the other.
Bombay High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - N M Jamdar - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs Gajanan Santosh Chavan on 22 December, 2023

75. Therefore, there is fundamental distinction between the principle laid down in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] and followed in Hemani Malhotra [Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203] on one hand and the situation in the present case on the other.
Bombay High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - N M Jamdar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next