Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 686 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007

Debabrata Maity vs The Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank & Ors on 17 June, 2015

In my opinion, the petitioner is not challenging the decision or policy to promote JMG Scale-I officers to MMG Scale-II post. He is challenging the effects of changing the terms and conditions of selection by the bank after initiation of the selection process. Therefore, his participation in the process does not operate as an estoppel. Hence the decision Union of India and Others Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 has no application.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

S.Lawrence vs The Principal Secretary To on 12 December, 2019

[Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100], SCC p. 107, para 19) “19. … ‘34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not “palatable” to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.’ ” In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rule.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P D Audikesavalu - Full Document

S.Lawrence vs The Principal Secretary To on 12 December, 2019

The Court further made observations in para 34 of the judgment [Ed.:Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 at p. 149] to the effect : [Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100], SCC p. 107, para 19) “19. … ‘34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not “palatable” to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.’ ” ____________ Page 26 of 51 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.10462 and 11835 of 2021 In para 20 this Court further observed that there are certain exceptions to the aforementioned rule. However, the Court did not go into those exceptions since the same were not material."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P D Audikesavalu - Full Document

Akhileshwar Mani Tiwai & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 March, 2014

Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 at p. 149] to the effect:(S. Vinodh Kumar case [Union of Patna High Court CWJC No.12382 of 2012 dt.14-03-2014 40 India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100], SCC p. 107, para 19) "19. ... ‟34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.‟"
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - M K Jha - Full Document

Kunal Kishor & Anr. vs Lt.Governor & Anr. on 21 May, 2010

31. No doubt in Ramesh Kumar v.High Court of Delhi & Anr.‟s case (supra), the factum of the candidates having participated in the selection process did not come in the way of their being granted the relief. This was, however, so because the norms sought to be applied were found to have no sanction under the rules. However, the observations made in Union of India & Ors. v. S.Vinodh Kumar & Ors.‟s case (supra) relying upon the observations in Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Ors. v.Shakuntala Shukla & Ors‟s case (supra) as also the observations in Madan Lal & Ors. v. The State of Jammu _____________________________________________________________________________________________ WPC 10787/2009 Page 16 of 18 & Kashmir and Ors.‟s case (supra) emphasizing the importance of participation in an examination to negate a relief cannot be ignored. The petitioners in the present case knew that the existing rules did not provide for such minimum marks in viva voce though the advertisement sought to provide for the same. They were also aware that in December, 2008, the amendment came into force and thus the intention was to apply the amendment to the examination of 2008. The petitioners participated in the examination and the viva voce but on their non-selection on account of not having obtained minimum marks in the viva voce, sought to rake up this issue in the present petition. The petitioners were thus fully conscious that the rules now mandate obtainment of minimum marks in viva voce, appeared for the viva voce but on being unsuccessful seek to raise the issue of cut off date for application of viva voce.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next