Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.07 seconds)
Unknown vs Appellant(S)/ on 10 March, 2016 cites

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

The decision in ECIL v. B. Karunakar is illustrative of this viewpoint. In the present case, the legality of the selection process with the addition of bonus marks could not have been seriously doubted either by the appointing authorities or by the candidates in view of the judicial precedents. A cloud was cast on the said decisions only after the selection process was completed and the results were declared or about to be declared. It is, therefore, a fit case to apply the judgment of the Full Bench rendered subsequent to the selection prospectively. One more aspect which is to be taken into account is that in almost all the writ petitions the candidates appointed, not to speak of the candidates selected, were not made parties before the High Court. Maybe, the laborious and long-drawn exercise of serving notices on each and every party likely to be affected need not have been gone through. At least, a general notice by newspaper publication could have been sought for or in the alternative, at W.A. No.618/12 & conn.cases -:26:- least a few of the last candidates selected/appointed could have been put on notice; but, that was not done in almost all the cases. That is the added reason why the judgment treading a new path should not as far as possible result in detriment to the candidates already appointed." Having regard to the fact that the law in this matter is clearly explained by the above judgment, we do not think that the above writ appeal on that ground can be entertained. Therefore, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Kailash Chand Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 30 July, 2002

In Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, the constitutional validity of the rules providing for weightage based on domicile of the candidates was assailed before the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court while reversing its earlier decisions upholding the grant of such weightage declared the rule to be unconstitutional. In an appeal before this Court one of the questions that fell for consideration was whether the selection made on the basis of the impugned rule could be saved by invoking the doctrine of prospective overruling. Answering the question in the affirmative, this Court cited two distinct reasons for invoking the doctrine:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 650 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Kailash Chand Sharma Etc. Etc. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 30 July, 2002

17.2. Secondly, this Court held that candidates who stood appointed on the basis of the selection process had not been impleaded as parties to the writ petitions that challenged the Rules providing for marks based on the domicile of the candidates. That being so, a judgment treading a new path should not as far as possible result in detriment to the candidates already appointed. The following observations made by this Court are apposite in this regard: (Kailash Chand Sharma case, SCC p. 590, para 42) "42. ... By the time the selection process was initiated and completed, these decisions were holding the field. However, when the writ petitions filed by Kailash Chand and others came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the correctness of the view taken in those two decisions was doubted and he directed the matters W.A. No.618/12 & conn.cases -:25:- to be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench. By the time this order was passed on 19-7-1999, we are informed that the select lists of candidates were published in many districts. On account of the stay granted for a period of three months and for other valid reasons, further lists were not published. It should be noted that in a case where the law on the subject was in a state of flux, the principle of prospective overruling was invoked by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 115 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1   2 Next