Rajesh Kumar Singh And Another vs Rajeev Nain Upadhyay And 24 Others on 4 December, 2019
44. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported at (2014) 16 SCC 187.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 139 (1.45 seconds)Bharath Kumar V vs Social Justice And Empowerment on 7 January, 2025
55. Similarly in Ranjan Kumar and Others Vs. State of
Bihar and Others, Civil Appeals No.4455-58 of 2009, it has
35
Item 38 OA No.669/2023
been held that if an applicant does not find himself selected
in a recruitment selection process then he cannot turn
around and cry foul that the rules by which the selection
has been conducted are vitiated.
Smt. Chandra Kumari Pandya vs State Of M.P. on 11 April, 2019
The Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar and others
Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187, has
held as under:-
Jayram Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 5 May, 2022
No objection to such prayer being allowed.
As mutually agreed, the instant petition stands
disposed of in terms of judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 21651 of 2018,
titled as Ranjan Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors, and the directions contained therein shall also govern the
instant case mutatis mutandis to the extent possible.
Sajjan Ansari @ Sahjan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 16 October, 2020
31. So far as the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Patna
High Court in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 20 of 2007 dated
30.11.2017 in the case of "Ranjan Kumar @ Raju and Ors. Vs.
State of Bihar" is concerned, the same also does not apply to
the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the
Hon'ble Court found that the appellants were apprehended on
motorcycle and in presence of two independent witnesses, the
fire arms were recovered from their possession, but the seizure
list witnesses never appeared in the case to support the seizure
and further, two of the members of the raiding party did not
support the seizure of fire arms from the possession of the
appellants. The Hon'ble Court was of the considered view in
appellate jurisdiction that the fact that two members of the
raiding party did not support the seizure coupled with the fact
that the seizure list witnesses also did not appear to support the
prosecution case created serious doubt in the prosecution case .
So far as the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of "Megha Singh -versus- State of Haryana"
Rabindra Kumar Rout vs General Manager N C Rly on 22 February, 2021
4.1 Further that with regards to the principles of joinder of parties under
Order-1 Rule-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the same has been
emphasized in the matter of Ranjan Kumar and others vs State of Bihar
and others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187, wherein the necessity of
including the persons who could be affected as a result of the writ petition
is highlighted. Therefore there is need to include all the successful
candidates notified vide the impugned order and since the applicant has not
included them, therefore, this is a clear case of non-joinder of parties and
the OA is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself on account of this
defect.
Secretary Jharkhand Public Service ... vs Ranjeet Kumar Sah S/O Sri Vishwanath Sah on 10 September, 2021
In support of his various contentions he has referred to
the judgment in the case of "Ranjan Kumar and Others versus State of
Bihar and Others", reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187.
WP(C)/1242/2021 on 23 September, 2021
In the above context, he has referred to the decisions in Udit Narain Singh
Malpaharia vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, reported in
AIR 1963 SC 786; Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251; Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others,
reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187; and Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra).
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai on 8 December, 2021
41. The other ground taken by the High Court for non-suiting the
appellants were that they had not impleaded all the affected Junior
Engineers. For the said proposition, the Division Bench of the High
Court has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case
of Ranjan Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others9.
The above case was in respect of selection and appointment on the
ground that the same had been made only on the basis of interview
without holding any written test. The High Court had quashed
such selection and appointments even of those appointees who
9
(2014) 16 SCC 187
42
were not even parties to the petition. It was in these circumstances
that this Court held that the appointments of non-parties could
not be quashed. Facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable.
Rishabh Mishra & Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko & ... on 20 December, 2021
38. Quite apart from the limited relief that the petitioners in the writ petitions marked as Group-A would be entitled to, the learned Advocate General has been at pains to demonstrate that none of the writ petitions are maintainable on another score. He questions the maintainability of the writ petitions on account of non-impleadment of necessary and proper parties. He submits that all selected candidates are required to be impleaded as parties and put under notice. He has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Km. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission and others10 and Ranjan Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others11. In Rashmi Mishra, it was held: