Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 862 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006

WP(C)/3105/2016 on 21 June, 2023

In the wake of discussion made above and considering the ratio of Hon'ble the Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Taniya Malik (supra), Salam Samarjeet Singh (supra), Ramesh Kumar (supra) and K.H. Siraj (supra) and the provisions contained in the Rules of 2006, we are of the firm view that the questioned condition in the recruitment advertisement, whereby prescription of 60% minimum marks was made for the viva-voce test, does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness nor the same can be said to be dehors the Rules of 2006 or the Constitutional mandate.
Gauhati High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Mehta - Full Document

Baljinder Singh Sra vs State Of H.P. And Others on 18 April, 2015

The complete answer to this question is found in K.H. Siraj's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was the High Court which is the best judge in the matter of selection and is required to exercise its powers in light of the constitutional scheme so that the best available talent suitable for manning the judiciary may get selected and this action cannot be questioned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Rajender Kumar And Anr vs State Of Raj & Anr on 28 January, 2011

27. Even in Tarun K. Singhs case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Malhotra an inquiry into the complaints received against the selection process was conducted no matter after the cancellation of the examination. This Court in that view held that since the selection process was vitiated by procedural and other infirmities cancellation thereof was perfectly justified.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - A Mishra - Full Document

Sh. Mandeep vs Commissioner Of Police on 10 October, 2013

xxxxxxx After examining the aforesaid clauses, the Honble Apex Court held that the High Court was empowered to formulate its own procedure in the matter of selection and to decide as to such of those candidates who can be called for interview based on the evaluation of their performance and to how the ultimate selection of the candidates on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by them both in the written examination and interview are to be made. Having held as above, the Apex Court answered the contention that the methodology adopted by the selection committee in resorting to the normalization process was a departure in the midway of the selection process and, therefore, on that score the ultimate selection cannot be approved, after distinguishing the facts in K. Manjushrees case (supra) and by following the case in K.H.Siraj (supra), by observing that no cut off mark was fixed for interview and what was prescribed in this case is a pattern of selection in which 25 marks allotted for interview was simply applied, and no minimum marks to be secured in the interview, was prescribed afresh after the selection process commenced, and thereby, for anyone to state that there was any change in the rule of the game, in order to interfere with the selection.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sanjeev Mago And Ors vs High Court Of Judicature And Anr on 28 January, 2011

27. Even in Tarun K. Singhs case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Malhotra an inquiry into the complaints received against the selection process was conducted no matter after the cancellation of the examination. This Court in that view held that since the selection process was vitiated by procedural and other infirmities cancellation thereof was perfectly justified.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Parmeshwar Patidar And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 4 July, 2007

In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (supra), a notification was issued by the Kerala High Court for appointment on the post of Munsiff Magistrate prescribing Rule 7 for holding of examination, written and oral. The concept of examination itself justify prescription of minimum passing marks and the prescription of minimum pass marks in interview by the notification was held legal and the Apex Court declined to declare Rule 7 as ultra vires or beyond the powers of the High Court. The Apex Court held that apart from the amplitude of the power under Rule 7, it is clearly open for the High Court to prescribe bench-marks for the written test and oral test in order to achieve the purpose of getting the best available talent. There is nothing in the Rules barring such a procedure from being adopted. The Apex Court further held that Executive Instructions can always supplement the rules which may not deal with every aspect of a matter. Even assuming that Rule 7 did not prescribe any particular minimum, it was open to the High Court to supplement the rule with a view to implement them by prescribing relevant standards in the advertisement for selection. It was further held that the appellants/petitioners therein, having participated in the interview in this back-ground, it is not open to the appellants/petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Rajesh Jain And Ors vs Raj High Court And Anr on 28 January, 2011

27. Even in Tarun K. Singhs case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Malhotra an inquiry into the complaints received against the selection process was conducted no matter after the cancellation of the examination. This Court in that view held that since the selection process was vitiated by procedural and other infirmities cancellation thereof was perfectly justified.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - A Mishra - Full Document

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

Para 73 referred to above in Sirah's case came to be distinguished by the Supreme Court, on fact, in Raj Kumar and others vs. Shakti Raj and others (1997 (9) SCC 527). That was a case, where the Government had not taken the posts from the purview of the Selection Board, but after examinations were concluded and after the results were announced, the Government took the same from the purview of Selection Board and thereafter, the Selection Committee was constituted and it was found that the entire procedure became illegal. In those circumstances it was held that the same cannot be a bar for the candidate to question the nature of selection. It is relevant to extract the following paragraph:
Madras High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nithin Norbert vs The University Of Kerala on 19 November, 2008

24. Now the question to be considered is whether the Upa- Lok Ayukta was right in allowing the amendment to incorporate relief No.6. As stated earlier, relief No.6 is for a declaration that the candidates whose name appear in the rank list are unfit to hold the post of Assistant Grade II in the University of Kerala. The complainant has produced before the Lok Ayukta a true copy of the final selection list of the top 160 candidates. The averments in the complaint would also indicate that there was a likelihood of those 160 persons being appointed. As held by the Supreme Court in Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 923 (SC)); M.P.State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav and others ((2007) 8 SCC 264) and Benny T.D. and others v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and another (AIR 1998 SC 2012), the employees concerned must be heard before any action is taken. All the persons who are included in the select list are not made parties in the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta. Even assuming that the W.P.(C) NO.22835 OF 2008 29 necessary amendment by which relief No.6 is sought to be incorporated could be allowed, a representative action could not be allowed by the Lok Ayukta. Therefore, Ext.P3 order, to the extent it allowed the amendment incorporating relief No.6 and incorporating the supporting averments for the same, is unsustainable. There is yet another reason for holding so. A complaint could be made in respect of an action which may constitute an "allegation" or a "grievance". Section 8 is a bar for the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta to conduct any investigation under the Act in the case of a complaint involving a "grievance" in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. Clause (d) in the Second Schedule deals with appointment of a public servant as well. A distinction has been maintained in the Act between an "allegation" and a "grievance". Section 9(3) provides forwarding of copy of the complaint to the public servant and the competent authority concerned. In the case on hand, the competent authority was not addressed, submits the petitioner. This is not controverted by the respondents. An "allegation" could be made against a public servant. The persons included in the rank list in the present case were not public servants at the relevant time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint discloses an W.P.(C) NO.22835 OF 2008 30 "allegation" against them. To constitute a "grievance", the complainant concerned must have sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal administration. There could be no "grievance" and no investigation could be made on the basis of such "grievance", if the complaint involving the "grievance" is in respect of any action relating to a matter specified in the Second Schedule. In respect of the matters mentioned in the second Schedule, there could be no "grievance", but there could be an "allegation". If a "grievance" is put forward in the complaint in respect of an action, the person concerned must be heard. Going by the averments in the complaint, it can be seen that the complaint is based on an "allegation" in respect of an action. If it is an "allegation", the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta cannot grant the relief made in relief No.6. If so, the Upa-Lok Ayukta was not justified in allowing the amendment to incorporate relief No.6 in the complaint and to incorporate the supporting averments in the complaint. To that extent, Ext.P3 order passed by the Upa-Lok Ayukta is unsustainable.
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - K T Sankaran - Full Document

J&K Public Service Commission vs Shakti Raj And Ors And Air 1987 Sc 2267 on 29 October, 2011

31. Last but not the least, the contention of Mr. G. A. Lone, was that the appellants in his appeal, namely, LPA no. 109/2011 were selected candidates but they were not impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition. The Honble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395, K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Ors, specifically dealt with the said issue and held as under in Paragraph no. 75:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next