K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
The decision in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra) followed
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra) wherein the
Supreme observed as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.76 seconds)Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
The decision in the case of Hemani Malhotra (supra) followed
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra) wherein the
Supreme observed as under:-
(Smt.) Smita Pandurang Dalvi, Of Bombay ... vs Ratnakar Dattatraya Patade, Of Bombay, ... on 26 February, 2002
The
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) considered
the question as to whether the rules enabled the High Court of Delhi to fix the
minimum benchmarks for interview in respect of selection of officers for the
Higher Judicial Service. After considering the case law on the subject, the
Supreme Court observed as under:-
Manjeet Singh, Udc And Ors. Etc vs Employees State Insurance C on 22 March, 1990
3. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
LPA No. 71/2010 Page 2 of 12
No.2 (Power Grid Corporation of India Limited) submitted that in the Supreme
Court decision in the case of Manjeet Singh, UDC & Ors. v. Employees State
Insurance Corporation & Anr. (1990) 2 S.C.C. 367, although a minimum
percentage had not been prescribed for the interview, the Supreme Court permitted
such a prescription following the minimum of 40% which had been prescribed for
the written examination.
Munindra Kumar And Ors. Etc vs Rajiv Govil And Ors Etc on 10 May, 1991
He also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the
case of Munindra Kumar & Ors. v. Rajiv Govil & Ors. AIR 1991 S.C. 1607,
wherein, in paragraph 11 thereof it has been indicated that marks for interview and
group discussion should not be kept exceeding 10% and 5% of the total marks,
respectively. The learned counsel for the appellant states that this is exactly what
has been done in the present case.
Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985
The Supreme Court
further observed that the question whether introduction of the requirement of
minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was
valid or not, never fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the decisions
referred to, namely, Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) and K.H. Siraj (supra).
K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006
The Supreme Court
further observed that the question whether introduction of the requirement of
minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was
valid or not, never fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the decisions
referred to, namely, Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) and K.H. Siraj (supra).
The Right to Information Act, 2005
1