Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.44 seconds)
Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 7 June, 2021 cites

Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan & Ors on 28 September, 2011

He also submitted that counting marks of qualifying paper will amount to non-adherence to the selection process stipulated in the advertisement and changing the rules of game after game has begun. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85. Paragraph 29 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 268 - A Kabir - Full Document

Anurag Verma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 December, 2011

The appellants participated in the selection process. Moreover, two other considerations weigh in balance. The High Court noted in the impugned judgment in Anurag Verma v. State of Bihar that the interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from vagueness. There was, in other words, no glaring or patent illegality in the process adopted by the High Court. There was an element of vagueness about whether Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated the requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct recruitment to Class III posts or whether the marks and qualifying marks were also incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was established to have been caused to the appellants by the 90:10 allocation."
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - S K Singh - Full Document

Union Public Service Commission vs Gyan Prakash Srivastava on 16 May, 2011

In the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Public Service Commission is a constitutional body, but its actions and decisions are not immune from judicial review and if a competent judicial forum finds that the impugned action is ultra vires the Constitution or any legislation or is otherwise arbitrary or discriminatory, there will be ample justification to nullify the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 16 - D Misra - Full Document
1