Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 543 (2.29 seconds)
Documents citing P.K. Ramachandra Iyer & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1983

The Bihar State Food And Civil Supplies ... vs Pappu Kr. Pankaj And Ors on 3 May, 2021

In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214 : AIR 1984 SC 541] this Court while dealing with the same issue, held that once it is established that there is no power to relax the essential qualifications, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised.
Patna High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court on 7 November, 2024

“65. … In Ramachandra Iyer case Rule 14 (…..) mandated that the marks at the written test and the oral examination have to be aggregated and the merit list prepared on the basis of such aggregation of marks. Therefore, the marks obtained at the written test and the oral test were both relevant whatever be the percentage, in the preparation of the merit list. Nevertheless, the examining board prescribed minimum for viva voce test and eliminated those who failed to get the minimum. Resultantly, candidates who would have found a place in the rank list based on the aggregate of the marks for the two tests stood eliminated because they did not get the minimum in the test. This was contrary to Rule 14 and that was the reason why the prescription of minimum marks for viva voce test was held invalid in Ramachandra Iyer case.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006

In Ramachandra Iyer's case(supra), Rule 14 (paragraph 43 of the judgment) mandated that the marks at the written test and the oral examination have to be aggregated and the merit list prepared on the basis of such aggregation of marks. Therefore, the marks obtained at the written test and the oral test were both relevant whatever be the percentage, in the preparation of the merit list. Nevertheless, the examining Board prescribed minimum for viva voce test and eliminated those who failed to get the minimum. Resultantly, candidates who would have found a place in the rank list based on the aggregate of the marks for the two tests stood eliminated because they did not get the minimum in the viva voce test.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 362 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Ram Sharan Maurya vs State Of U. P. on 18 November, 2020

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha21 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships in Manjusree12. This Court in Manjusree relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India23, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India24 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa25. In none of the cases, was the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha21 considered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 77 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Dr. Mahipal Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 April, 2025

In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141] this Court held that once it is established that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot otherwise be exercised."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs Aligarh Muslim University & Ors on 20 February, 2009

23.After analysing the present issue in the light of the abovesaid legal proposition laid down by this Court we hold that the High Court was justified in rejecting the candidature of Merajuddin Ahmad as against the said post which was advertised for pure Chemistry stream. However, with the appointment of Merajuddin Ahmad to the said post, the list recommended by the Selection Committee and approved by the other competent authority has lapsed. We, therefore, uphold the order passed by the High Court giving liberty to the University to lay down the qualification necessary for filling up the aforesaid post. The University shall now advertise the said post by laying down exact essential qualification indicating the particular subject and subjects- stream which is required to be possessed for making an application to fill up the said post and therefore proceed to appoint a Lecturer suitable for the aforesaid post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 101 - M Sharma - Full Document

Brahma Chellaney vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 January, 2002

This stand has been watered down in Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., and P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., and then virtually marginalised in the U.P. State Co-operative's case, (supra). It seems to me that the fineness with which questions on the maintainability of writ petition are pondered upon is largely unnecessary if it is borne in mind that the Petitioner always has civil remedy, though it may not be efficacious, expeditious and/or cheap. It is not the Court while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 is bestowing a relief which is otherwise beyond the reach of the Petitioner. The restraints and parameters of writ jurisdiction are jural in nature and origin, and therefore ought not to impede the Court from interfering when the circumstances compel it to do so. The sanctity of the five writs had to be culled out from obscure and esoteric legal principles to counter the then prevailing theory of divine monarchical rights. In the present age this artificial and jural distinction has largely been obliterated by the ubiquitous prayer found in present day writ petitions, viz. for the passing of 'orders' of the nature of a particular writ, thereby widening the horizons of the writs as they were originally comprehended.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 4 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next