Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.93 seconds)
Mohit Sheokand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 February, 2025 cites

Deepak Kumar Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors.Etc on 27 February, 2012

"1. The present review application is preferred by the State of Haryana pointing out that CWP-6731-2024, ti- tled as Deepak Vs. State of Haryana and Others was a dif- ferent Writ Petition than the other bunch of Writ Petitions decided by his Court vide order dated 31.05.2024, where the selection and notification dated 05.05.2022 was under chal- lenge. In the present case i.e. CWP-6731-2024, the chal- lenge was to the selections made earlier in the year 2022 re- lating to an advertisement issued in the year 2019.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 430 - Full Document

Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 28 March, 2023

12. A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in 'Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others', 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344 has held that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. A candidate cannot allege that selection process was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process just because selection process was not palatable to a candidate. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 15 - K Joseph - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013

In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 434 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs State Of Bihar . on 21 October, 2016

iii) Similarly, in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, a process was initiated for promotion to Class- III posts from amongst Class-IV employees of a civil court. In the said case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 26-02-2025 00:31:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:026075 CWP-4965-2025 10 marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twentyseven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined to approve the Select List on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90 : 10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks - 90 and qualifying marks - 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class-III posts. It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial Select List. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 20 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next