Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)Chattar Singh & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 24 September, 1996
The judgment in the case of Chattar Singh &
Ors. (supra) was even relied in the case of Dharmveer
Tholia (supra) and para Nos.49 to 52 of the judgment in
the case of Dharmveer Tholia (supra) have already been
quoted in the preceding paras to answer the question."
Dharamveer Tholia And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 10 August, 2000
We are clear in our view that
the rule of reservation is not applied at the time of short
listing the candidates and Article 16(4) for reservation is
not applied in every stage of selection process as being
envisaged in the facts and circumstances of the case and
we are in full agreement with the view expressed by the
(Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 09:38:51 PM)
(22 of 26)
[CW-10274/2021 and 16 connected CWs]
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharamveer
Tholia (supra).
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Manjit Singh And Ors on 16 September, 2003
In the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Manjit
Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for the purpose of
shortlisting, it would not at all be necessary to provide cut off
marks. However, on a careful consideration of the said judgment,
it becomes clear that in the said case no rule analogous to Rule 15
of the Rules of 1999 or Rule 25(ii) of the Rajasthan Subordinate
Courts (Driver and Class IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017, was
under consideration and thus, the said judgment is clearly
distinguishable.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Dr. Megha Sharma D/O Shri S.D. Sharma on 23 March, 2020
Similar controversy was examined by another Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and others Vs. Megha Sharma and others
reported in 2020(3) RLW (Raj.) 2203 wherein, it was
categorically held that migration is not to be applied while short-
listing the candidates for interview/main exam after subjecting
(Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 09:38:51 PM)
(16 of 26)
[CW-10274/2021 and 16 connected CWs]
them to screening test and it has to be applied at the time of final
selection i.e. preparing the final merit list only. The observations
made by the Division Bench at para 12 of the said judgment are
relevant to the controversy at hand and are thus reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madan Lal & Ors vs The State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors on 6 February, 1995
(24 of 26)
[CW-10274/2021 and 16 connected CWs]
In addition thereto, we may observe that the recruitment
notification made a specific stipulation in Clause 12(1)(vi) that a
screening test would be held for shortlisting the candidates and
that the list of the candidate declared successful for participating
in the final list of recruitment i.e. job test and personal interview
would be prepared "category-wise". This recruitment condition of
the advertisement was not challenged by any of the petitioners
before applying and participating in the recruitment process. Thus,
they cannot be allowed to do so at this belated stage when the
result of screening test is already been declared. The consequence
of a candidate not challenging a so-called offending clause of the
recruitment notification before participating in the selection
process was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 and it was held as
below:
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
[1986]1SCR855 , it has been clearly laid down by a
Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when
the petitioner appeared at the examination without
protest and when he found that he would not succeed in
examination he filed a petition challenging the said
examination, the High Court should not have granted
any relief to such a petitioner.