Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing P. Prabu vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 11 March, 2020

S.Sabitha Banu vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 26 March, 2021

4.Much reliance has been made on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4318 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020 (P.Prabu v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission). In the said case, the candidate was working as a permanent employee, which is not the case before us. In such view of the matter, the law laid down cannot be applied to the facts of the case. http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 W.A.(MD)No.489 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a candidate, who wrote the examination for the Civil Judge, contrary to the instruction made marking in pencil. There is an object behind making marking with pencil against the instruction, which was to prevent any malpractice. In such view of the matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the candidate having committed wrong cannot get over the same. We are of the view, the aforesaid decision is also factually distinguishable.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

A.R.Gokila Vani vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2022

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as sought for. The respondents filed their position note and the learned standing counsel took me through its contents. The primary contention advanced by the learned standing counsel is that the writ petitioner can be considered only under UG catergory since the PG qualification possessed by her does not meet the eligibility criteria. If the petitioner is to be considered as candidate eligible for the aforesaid post, then apart from possessing UG qualification, she must also have experience as set out in Clause 4(B) in the recruitment notification. In this case, the petitioner ommitted to claim that she is having the said experience. She uploaded the experience certificate during certificate verification. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be called for oral test. The learned counsel pressed for dismissal of the writ petition. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench rendered in W.A.No.4318 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020 (P.Prabhu Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission).
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

A.R.Gokila Vani vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2022

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as sought for. The respondents filed their position note and the learned standing counsel took me through its contents. The primary contention advanced by the learned standing counsel is that the writ petitioner can be considered only under UG catergory since the PG qualification possessed by her does not meet the eligibility criteria. If the petitioner is to be considered as candidate eligible for the aforesaid post, then apart from possessing UG qualification, she must also have experience as set out in Clause 4(B) in the recruitment notification. In this case, the petitioner ommitted to claim that she is having the said experience. She uploaded the experience certificate during certificate verification. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be called for oral test. The learned counsel pressed for dismissal of the writ petition. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench rendered in W.A.No.4318 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020 (P.Prabhu Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission).
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

A.R.Gokila Vani vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2022

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as sought for. The respondents filed their position note and the learned standing counsel took me through its contents. The primary contention advanced by the learned standing counsel is that the writ petitioner can be considered only under UG catergory since the PG qualification possessed by her does not meet the eligibility criteria. If the petitioner is to be considered as candidate eligible for the aforesaid post, then apart from possessing UG qualification, she must also have experience as set out in Clause 4(B) in the recruitment notification. In this case, the petitioner ommitted to claim that she is having the said experience. She uploaded the experience certificate during certificate verification. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be called for oral test. The learned counsel pressed for dismissal of the writ petition. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench rendered in W.A.No.4318 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020 (P.Prabhu Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission).
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

The Chairman vs Sivagami Sundara Nachiyar on 3 April, 2025

7.The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has also circulated a judgment of our High Court in the case of P.Prabu and V.Arunkumar .vs. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, represented by is Secretary, Frazer Bridge Roa, VOC nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003 in Writ Appeal No.4318 of 2019, dated 11.3.2020 rendered following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and others .vs. G.Hemalatha and another. The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission also produced a sealed cover disclosing the mark obtained by the Petitioner in the main written examination and the cut-off mark for the respective category to emphasise that the Writ Petitioner and otherwise is not entitled for being invited to include in the provisional list for oral test, since it was short-listed based of 2:1 ratio and the cut-off mark fixed for the MBC/DC community was far high than the mark secured by the writ Petitioner in the main written examination. 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm )
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document
1