Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)
Dr.Greeshma Gopal vs The Selection Committee on 14 November, 2022 cites

Dr. M. Vennila vs Tamil Nadu Public on 12 June, 2006

Insofar as one of the bullet point under the heading "Important information", in the prospectus, that, in the event of rejection of the application form, no correspondence / request for reconsideration will be entertained, since is heavily relied upon by the first respondent, the learned Senior counsel in this context would submit that, if at all, the online application is submitted without proper facts or bereft of facts or when applications were submitted through offline, i.e., through physical copy of the application, where if there has been no signature of the candidate, in that case, such kind of rejection though has been approved in a case reported in Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported in 2006 (3) CTC 449, such a proposition having been considered subsequently by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr.A.Rajapandian v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2006 (5) CTC 529, where it was held that, when there is so much of confused instructions given, pursuant to which, if there was any confusion created in the minds of the candidates, the blame squarely lies on 16/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27151 of 2022 the Service Commission (in that case) as there had been a mess created in the minds of the candidates, therefore in the said back drop, the Division Bench has allowed the writ petitions and directed to accept those applications which were submitted to the respondent TNPSC therein.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

Dr. A. Rajapandian vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 November, 2006

Insofar as one of the bullet point under the heading "Important information", in the prospectus, that, in the event of rejection of the application form, no correspondence / request for reconsideration will be entertained, since is heavily relied upon by the first respondent, the learned Senior counsel in this context would submit that, if at all, the online application is submitted without proper facts or bereft of facts or when applications were submitted through offline, i.e., through physical copy of the application, where if there has been no signature of the candidate, in that case, such kind of rejection though has been approved in a case reported in Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported in 2006 (3) CTC 449, such a proposition having been considered subsequently by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr.A.Rajapandian v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2006 (5) CTC 529, where it was held that, when there is so much of confused instructions given, pursuant to which, if there was any confusion created in the minds of the candidates, the blame squarely lies on 16/50 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27151 of 2022 the Service Commission (in that case) as there had been a mess created in the minds of the candidates, therefore in the said back drop, the Division Bench has allowed the writ petitions and directed to accept those applications which were submitted to the respondent TNPSC therein.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1