Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Siya Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1997

Mahesh Kumar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 May, 2008

In Siyaram's case, the norms had been laid down for the selection board to follow by the high ranking officials well-versed with the requirements of the post to which selection was to be made and in absence of any irregularity or illegality in the selection process, such norms laid down by the Board consisting of high ranking officials, the selection procedure was approved.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sugandha Devi vs East Central Railway on 10 September, 2025

Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 OA 465/2021 screening examination held on 19.02.2003. However, issuance of appointment order was delayed solely due to an interim order dated 24.02.2003 passed in OA No. 40/2002 [Siya Ram & Others vs UOI]. Hence, for the purpose of applicability of RBE No. 41/2023 read with the above OM, the case of the husband of the applicant squarely falls within its ambit. The deceased husband of the applicant also comes within the scope of para-3(ii) of DoP&PW letter dated 17.02.2020 read with RBE No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020, which specifically provided that employees whose appointments were delayed beyond 01.01.2004 due to administrative reasons or court cases, despite having been selected earlier, shall be covered under the Old Pension Scheme.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

SPA/37/2022 on 18 July, 2022

In Siya Ram v. Union of India one of the grounds of attack was that the rules regarding selection for the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways, permitted only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held. It was contended that the result of a selection merely on the basis of viva voce could not be reasonably fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness. There, out of 100 marks, 50 were allotted for professional ability without prescribing any norms.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M K Tiwari - Full Document

Janardan Shriram vs State Of Up & Ors. (Air 2000 Sc 3299) After ... on 19 May, 2011

(a) Siya Ram v. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 566,  The Selection Board consisted of high-ranking officials, well versed with the requirements of the post to which promotion was to be made. Norms had been laid for the Selection Board to follow. No fault can be found with the same. Apart from the objection that excessive marks had been allocated for viva voce, the appellant has been unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the selection process. Functions and duties attached to the post of Chief Personnel Inspector have nowhere been set out. It is not for this Court to suggest as to what marks should be allocated for interview in a case like the present one. As noted above, at times for certain posts only interview is considered to be the best method for selection. We are thus of the opinion that selection made for the two posts of Chief Personnel Inspector in the present case was according to the Rules. There is no infirmity in the selection process for us to interfere in the appeal. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is a well considered one. It was, however, not necessary for the Tribunal to make observations from which the appellant sought to draw strength. We do not find any merit in the case of the appellant and would uphold the judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

SPA/656/2015 on 18 July, 2022

In Siya Ram v. Union of India one of the grounds of attack was that the rules regarding selection for the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways, permitted only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held. It was contended that the result of a selection merely on the basis of viva voce could not be reasonably fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness. There, out of 100 marks, 50 were allotted for professional ability without prescribing any norms.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M K Tiwari - Full Document

Dr. Vijayalakshmi Ravindranath vs National Institute Of Mental Health And ... on 22 March, 1999

Secondly, it is contended that this Court exercising its power of judicial review can annul the selection made by the Selection Committee consisting of experts and academicians, only if there is patent irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Committee, proved mala fides affecting the selection and lastly, if the procedure adopted is unfair and unjust vitiating the entire selection process, In support of this contention, the learned Counsel strongly relies upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Berhampur University and Another v Dr. Sailabala Padhi, Kuldip Chand v State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, Siya Ram v Union of India and Others , Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others v Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others, Dr. Krishna Chandra Sahu and Others v State of Orissa and Others and lastly, the observations made by the Apex Court in Dr. K. Kalyana Raman's case, supra. The third limb of the argument canvassed is that, the party who had participated in the selection process cannot complain not only of the constitution of the Selection Committee but also the selection process. In other words, having participated in the selection process, the person loses all his/her rights to question the selection process of the Selection Committee.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Subhash Baloda & Ors. vs Lok Sabha Secretariat & Ors. on 1 September, 2011

16. The learned Single Judge also negatived the contention that the prescribing of 50% as the cut-off mark for the personal interview was unreasonable or arbitrary. As regards not specifying the minimum qualifying marks for the interview in the advertisement itself, the learned Single Judge referred to the judgment in Siya Ram v. Union of India (1998) 2 SCC 566 in which the Supreme Court held that the determination of what should be the minimum qualification should be left to the experts and courts should not interfere unless exaggerated weight was given to the interview for proven or obvious motives. On the facts of the case before the court in Mahesh Kumar, the learned Single Judge found that the decision to assign minimum 50% marks for the interview was arrived at "in a thorough and scientific manner". The learned Single Judge also opined that "since, different marks were assigned for different facets of interview, not fixing minimum marks for the interview could also lead to disastrous results inasmuch as the candidates not having any manners and knowledge of duties involved in security service for which the total marks were only 23 would have become entitled for selection. With these detailed yardsticks as have been resolved by the respondents it is difficult to infer that oral interview in the present facts is not very satisfactory test for the job of SAG-II in Rajya Sabha."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Kiran Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors. Etc on 28 September, 2000

In Siya Ram Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1998 (2) SCC 566] one of the grounds of attack was that the Rules regarding selection for the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways, permitted only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held. It was contended that the result of a selection merely on the basis of viva voce could not be reasonably fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness. There, out of 100 marks, 50 were allotted for professional ability without prescribing any norms.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 88 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Rajeev Kumar Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 October, 2013

Similarly in Siya Ram Vs. Union of India and others, (1998) 2 SCC 566, rules regarding selection for the post of Chief Gupta Sanjay 2013.10.29 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 19928 of 2010 [25] Personnel Inspector in Railways on the basis of only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held to be valid. In the said case out of 100 marks 50 were allocated for professional ability without prescribing any norms. The Apex Court held that at times for certain posts only interview was considered to be the best method of selection.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - M M Bedi - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council vs Usha Gangaria And Ors. on 23 December, 2011

24. The senior counsel for the respondent hawkers/squatters/vendors relied on the order dated 8th May, 2008 of the Supreme Court in I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 in SLP (Civil) No. 17472/2005 titled as Siya Ram v. Union of India where the Supreme Court refused to entertain the individual grievances of the hawkers having regard to the fact that the appropriate Vending Committee had already been set up and also directed the appointment of a retired High Court Judge to head the Appellate Authority. He has contended that the Supreme Court having appointed a Retired Judicial Officer, the presumption of the Appellate Authority having power to issue interim directions has to be drawn.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 3 Next