Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
Ajay Meena S/O Sitaram Meena vs The Rajasthan High Court Johdpur ... on 1 October, 2024 cites

Ashok Kumar & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 September, 2018

8. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners are estopped to challenge the process of selection after participating in the same as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra); secondly, the petitioners have not made any complaint at the time (Downloaded on 02/10/2024 at 09:53:23 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-12895/2024] of written test to their respective invigilator with regard to any fault either in the computer or with the keyboard provided to them in the examination hall; thirdly, the petitioners have voluntarily signed the certificate that their computer and keyboard are functioning properly at the time when the type test was conducted.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 59 - M K Shah - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002

In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002), this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 400 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Manish Kumar Shah vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2023

In Manish Kumar ShahI v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:(SCCp.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 19 - R K Verma - Full Document
1   2 Next