Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 573 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Anupal Singh . vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 30 September, 2019

Ramratan Gurjar S/O Shri Ramkishan ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2025

13. This Court also notes that the appellants participated in the selection process without any demur or protest and challenged the (Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:23:19 PM) (Downloaded on 06/11/2025 at 06:41:19 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-931/2024] same only after being declared unsuccessful. It is well settled that a candidate who consciously participates in a selection process is estopped from subsequently questioning its validity merely because the outcome is adverse. The principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), which squarely applies to the present case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Rameshwar Choudhary vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2025

13. This Court also notes that the appellants participated in the selection process without any demur or protest and challenged the (Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:17:03 PM) (Downloaded on 06/11/2025 at 09:30:13 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46970-DB] (18 of 19) [SAW-931/2024] same only after being declared unsuccessful. It is well settled that a candidate who consciously participates in a selection process is estopped from subsequently questioning its validity merely because the outcome is adverse. The principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), which squarely applies to the present case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Narasimha Ampalla vs Dept Of Posts on 6 October, 2020

VI. It is not out place to state that a judgment delivered must be looked from the holistic perspective and not selectively by picking up certain portions and presenting them in a disjointed manner in order to make out a case, as has been attempted by the applicant. We rely on the Hon‟ble Apex Court observation in Anupal Singh v State of U.P supra, to state the above as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Umadutt Sharma vs Union Of India (1993) 4 on 27 October, 2021

In Anupal Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 173, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it was not open to the aggrieved candidate to turn around and challenge the revised Notification and having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents intervenors.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document

Dr. Raghavendra H K vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2021

20. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for University in the case of Anupal Singh (supra) is distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the case at hand without much ado. The challenge in the case before the Apex Court was with regard to conduct of the examination and the percentage of 24 reservation as notified in the select list. It is in this context, the Apex Court has held that a candidate who takes a chance in the selection process with eyes wide open cannot challenge the process of selection conducted by the commission, as in terms of the Notification, the candidates therein had consciously participated in the selection process including the interview. The facts obtaining in the case at hand are completely different where there is no challenge to the process or procedure of selection or the Notification, but, to the appointment of the respondent No.7 pursuant to the selection being contrary to the statute.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

P Venkateswaramma vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 19 October, 2020

It is immaterial as to whether the employee is a defence or a civilian employee since the issue is about the date of implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations applicable to all Central Govt. employees. It is important that the essence of a judgment is of paramount importance, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anupal Singh and ors v State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal Nos.4815 of 2019 with 4816-36/2019 decided on 30.9.2019 (2020) 2 SCC 173, as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baddela Suresh , vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 April, 2020

In "Anupal Singh v. State of U.P.2" the Apex Court had an occasion to decide the validity of office memorandum issued to rectify the mistakes in calculation of number of vacancies for different categories. The Apex Court held that "(i) The Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 issued by the UP Public Service Commission revising the number of vacancies is based upon the revised requisition of the Government dated 20.08.2014. The revised requisition of the Government dated 20.08.2014 was only to rectify the wrongful calculation of the number of vacancies in different categories and to comply with the requisite percentage of quota of reservation in different categories as per Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994; (ii) In view of Rule 15 and Rule 6 of UP Subordinate Agriculture Services Rules, 1993 (Agriculture Service Rules, 1993), the Recruitment Authority is empowered to rectify the wrongful calculation and make a revised requisition of number of vacancies in different categories which is in accordance with the provisions of UP Reservation Act, 1994 and Agriculture 2 AIR 2019 SC 5652 MSM,J WP_20105_2019 15 Service Rules, 1993; (iii) Absorption of diploma holders were required to be done only against the "General quota".
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Abhishek Kumar vs 1. Office Of District And Sessions Judge ... on 20 April, 2021

25. Per contra, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat learned counsel for the Respondents opposes the petitions and argues that it is a settled law that if a candidate has consciously participated in a selection process, he or she cannot turn around and challenge the process. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal and Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486 and in Anupal Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 173, wherein reliance was in turn placed on the judgments in N.T.Devin Katti vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157 and Union of India vs. Ravi Prakash Gupta, (2010) 7 SCC 626. It is argued that the Petitioner had participated in the selection process upto the stage of skill test, i.e., Tier II, without raising any grievance or objection to the advertisement, clearly stipulating that the District & Sessions Judge could dispense with any stage of the selection, subject of course to the conditions mentioned therein. He has taken a calculated risk and only because he did not ultimately succeed in achieving marks required to come in the merit list, above the cut-off, the present petitions were filed assailing the selection process and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next