Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 310 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Hc Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors vs Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors on 11 May, 2015

Lubna Tabassum And 13 Others vs State Of Telangana And Another on 1 June, 2021

In several cases, the Courts have refrained from entertaining petitions which have been filed by a candidate after participating in the selection procedure and then turning around to challenge it. [Refer: Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285, Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486, K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 11 W.A.No.809 of 2019 Page 20 of 24 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227, K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 5 SCC 515, Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357]. Even otherwise, the Notification dated 07.04.2020, cannot be made as the basis for claiming the relief which the appellant was otherwise not entitled to."
Telangana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - H Kohli - Full Document

Vijay Lakshmi S vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 13 January, 2022

In Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493, where the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. Only when they declared unsuccessful, they challenged the same, which cannot be allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para- 17 as follows:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S N Pathak - Full Document

Venkatesh And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 22 April, 2022

And only after realizing that they have not succeeded under the modified selection criteria, do petitioners approach the Court with a prayer not to consider the marks obtained in the written test and petitioners want the selection to be made without reference to the marks in the written test. After having participated in the written examination under the changed criteria without protest, the party cannot object to considering the marks in the written test, unless he can demonstrate that the changes introduced are contrary to 47 law. Such a stand is hit by the doctrine of estoppel. The Judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of ASHOK KUMAR & ANOTHER vs STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2017)4 SCC 357, NITESH KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2020)4 SCC 70, ANUPAL SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2020)2 SCC 173, PRADEEP KUMAR RAI vs DINESH KUMAR PANDEY reported in (2015)11 SCC 493 would lend support to the contention of the respondents.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shri Susanta Kumar Sethi And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Others on 16 January, 2018

15. Considering the submission of Shri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that the engagement subsequently having been regularized the O.R.V. Act has an application otherwise, this Court observes, the writ petition since involves a challenge to the initial engagement of the opposite parties under the terms of the advertisement under Annexure-1, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the above regard, has no scope for consideration at this level. In the event of any subsequent event involving the tenure appointment particularly regularizing such appointees, nothing prevented the petitioners to challenge the regularization of the opposite parties at appropriate time. This Court has a doubt as to whether question involving regularization of such candidates can be raised at this point of time particularly after long lapse of time in the meantime. It is at this stage, this Court also takes into consideration the submission of Mrs. P. Rath that the petitioners having applied and appeared pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 accepting the particular set of terms and conditions therein, are estopped from taking such issues particularly after remaining unsuccessful in the recruitment process. This Court following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma versus Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others as reported in 2011(I) SCC 150 and the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai and others versus Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others as reported in 2015(II) SCC 493, observes that the petitioners having participated in the process of interview with a particular set up conditions more particularly allowing the authority to proceed in the selection process and not challenged the condition in the advertisement or the process followed in the interview till results were declared and considering that there is long lapse of time 14 stretching to more than decades, the petitioners are estopped to raise such grounds at this point of time. Entertaining such matters at this point of time will be landing the successful candidates i.e. the opposite parties 6 to 25 in a disastrous future for their crossing the age limit for appearing in any future interviews.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document

Preetesh Kumar Yadav vs Smt Priyanka Tyagi, The Director ... on 6 November, 2023

The court refer the cases Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521, Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493, Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam, (2016) 1 SCC 454, Amlan Jyoti Borrooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 and said:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr Jitendra Dubey vs Ihq Of Mod(Army) on 1 November, 2023

The court refer the cases Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521, Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493, Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam, (2016) 1 SCC 454, Amlan Jyoti Borrooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 and said:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next