Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Pranay Kumar Soni vs The Chairman, U.P.S.C. And Anr. on 25 April, 2003

Varre Sai Pranav Sudhanshu vs Union Of India & Anr. on 30 August, 2024

22. The question that arises in the present case is whether the issues involved herein can be regarded as relating to the examination conducted by the UPSC. This question emerges in the context that there is no challenge to the examination conducted in 2006. Insofar as the 2005 examinations are concerned, that is over. And, the petitioner does not stake any claim in respect thereof because he could not complete that examination as a result of circumstances beyond his control. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court declaring his appearance in the 2005 examination to be disregarded as an attempt. The issue here is not so much with regard to the conduct of the examinations but with regard to the petitioner's eligibility to sit in the examination. Had it been a matter where the examination itself was in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 9744/2024 Page 8 of 26 Signing Date:12.09.2024 01:07:06 question, it would clearly fall within the ratio of the decisions in Pranay Kumar Soni (supra) and Neeraj Kansal (supra), which in turn followed S. Tripathi (supra). Here the issue is with regard to eligibility. In my view, the expression used in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not just "recruitment" but "recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment". Had the expression only been "recruitment", there could have been some debate as to whether a condition of eligibility was a part of recruitment. But the expression used in Section 14 is of much wider amplitude inasmuch as it also refers to "matters concerning recruitment". An eligibility condition would definitely, in my view, fall within the scope of this expression. The question in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner was eligible or not to sit for the 2006 examinations. That is certainly a matter concerning recruitment.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Parikshit Grewal & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 30 August, 2024

22. The question that arises in the present case is whether the issues involved herein can be regarded as relating to the examination conducted by the UPSC. This question emerges in the context that there is no challenge to the examination conducted in 2006. Insofar as the 2005 examinations are concerned, that is over. And, the petitioner does not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 10134/2024 & connected matter Page 9 of 28 Signing Date:12.09.2024 01:07:06 stake any claim in respect thereof because he could not complete that examination as a result of circumstances beyond his control. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court declaring his appearance in the 2005 examination to be disregarded as an attempt. The issue here is not so much with regard to the conduct of the examinations but with regard to the petitioner's eligibility to sit in the examination. Had it been a matter where the examination itself was in question, it would clearly fall within the ratio of the decisions in Pranay Kumar Soni (supra) and Neeraj Kansal (supra), which in turn followed S. Tripathi (supra). Here the issue is with regard to eligibility. In my view, the expression used in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not just "recruitment" but "recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment". Had the expression only been "recruitment", there could have been some debate as to whether a condition of eligibility was a part of recruitment. But the expression used in Section 14 is of much wider amplitude inasmuch as it also refers to "matters concerning recruitment". An eligibility condition would definitely, in my view, fall within the scope of this expression. The question in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner was eligible or not to sit for the 2006 examinations. That is certainly a matter concerning recruitment.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Vinay vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 August, 2024

22. The question that arises in the present case is whether the issues involved herein can be regarded as relating to the examination conducted by the UPSC. This question emerges in the context that there is no challenge to the examination conducted in 2006. Insofar as the 2005 examinations are concerned, that is over. And, the petitioner does not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR W.P.(C) 10134/2024 & connected matter Page 9 of 28 Signing Date:12.09.2024 01:07:06 stake any claim in respect thereof because he could not complete that examination as a result of circumstances beyond his control. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court declaring his appearance in the 2005 examination to be disregarded as an attempt. The issue here is not so much with regard to the conduct of the examinations but with regard to the petitioner's eligibility to sit in the examination. Had it been a matter where the examination itself was in question, it would clearly fall within the ratio of the decisions in Pranay Kumar Soni (supra) and Neeraj Kansal (supra), which in turn followed S. Tripathi (supra). Here the issue is with regard to eligibility. In my view, the expression used in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is not just "recruitment" but "recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment". Had the expression only been "recruitment", there could have been some debate as to whether a condition of eligibility was a part of recruitment. But the expression used in Section 14 is of much wider amplitude inasmuch as it also refers to "matters concerning recruitment". An eligibility condition would definitely, in my view, fall within the scope of this expression. The question in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner was eligible or not to sit for the 2006 examinations. That is certainly a matter concerning recruitment.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Parikshit Grewal & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 27 September, 2024

22. The question that arises in the present case is whether the issues involved herein can be regarded as relating to the examination conducted by the UPSC. This question emerges in the context that there is no challenge to the examination conducted in 2006. Insofar as the 2005 examinations are concerned, that is over. And, the petitioner does not stake any claim in respect thereof because he could not complete that examination as a result of circumstances beyond his control. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court declaring his appearance in the 2005 examination to be disregarded as an attempt. The issue here is not so much with regard to the conduct of the examinations but with regard to the petitioner's eligibility to sit in the examination. Had it been a matter where the examination itself was in question, it would clearly fall within the ratio of the decisions in Pranay Kumar Soni (supra) and Neeraj Kansal (supra), which in turn followed S. Tripathi (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1