Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 620 (7.30 seconds)
Documents citing Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001

K.Nehru vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2008

In this context, the principle set down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2002 (2) L.L.N. 33 (Maharashtra State Transport Corporation and others Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others) assumes significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that the rules of the game viz., the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the Authority concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Namami Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2025

The latter could be termed as the procedure adopted for the selection, such as, prescribing minimum cut-off marks to be secured by the candidates either in the written examination or viva voce as was done in Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 at p. 524, para 27 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] or the present case or calling upon the candidates to undergo some test relevant to the nature of the employment (such as driving test as was in Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51 at pp. 55-56, para 5 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] ).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sana Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2025

The latter could be termed as the procedure adopted for the selection, such as, prescribing minimum cut-off marks to be secured by the candidates either in the written examination or viva voce as was done in Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 at p. 524, para 27 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] or the present case or calling upon the candidates to undergo some test relevant to the nature of the employment (such as driving test as was in Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51 at pp. 55-56, para 5 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] ).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Kumar vs Punjab Gramin Bank & Others on 4 July, 2011

This as already held was in violation of the statutory Rules governing the service. But still as the process has already been initiated in June, 2009 and was in midst of it, the said change could have not been brought about by the Bank. It is by now settled by the catena of judgments that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Reference at this stage can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others (supra). On this ground also the impugned circular dated 10.10.2009 cannot be sustained.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

Zar Nigar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 23 January, 2020

"(1) E.V.Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors ( JT 2005(11) SC 482) (2) A.A.Carlton Vs. Director of Education and Ors (1983) 3 SCC 33) (3) K.Manjushree Vs. State of A.P. and Ors ( 2008) 3 SCC 512) (4) Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi ( 2008) 7 SCC 11) (5) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Ors. ( 2002) ILLJ819 SC) He further submitted that the respondents have changed the rules of the game after the selection process was started.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 7 June, 2021

-114- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51 has observed in paragraph 5 that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced as the same would amount to changing the rules of the games. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Vikas Saksena vs Union Of India And Others on 13 September, 2010

In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve MANU/SC/0737/2001 : (2002)ILLJ819SC , this Court observed that "the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced." In this case the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game has been played and the results of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013

SCC 401], Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51], Pitta Naveen Kumar and Others v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Others [(2006) 10 SCC 261], K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 3 SCC 512], Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi [(2008) 7 SCC 11], K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395], Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi [(2010) 3 SCC 104], Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi [(2010) 2 SCC 637], Hardev Singh v. Union of India [2011) 10 SCC 121] – Where procedural rules were altered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 150 - Full Document

Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 7 June, 2021

-114- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51 has observed in paragraph 5 that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced as the same would amount to changing the rules of the games. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court on 7 November, 2024

The latter could be termed as the procedure adopted for the selection, such as, prescribing minimum cut-off marks to be secured by the candidates either in the Page 7 of 44 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634 OF 2013 written examination or viva voce as was done in Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 at p. 524, para 27 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] or the present case or calling upon the candidates to undergo some test relevant to the nature of the employment (such as driving test as was in Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51 at pp. 55-56, para 5 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next