Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
Dr. Oishika Chakraborty vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences ... on 27 February, 2026 cites

Punjab Engineering College Etc. Etc vs Sanjay Gulati And Ors on 20 April, 1983

"19. The principle that the prospectus is binding on all persons concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, (AIR 1983 SC 580 = 1983 (96) LW 172 S.N.)....... It is clear that the prospectus is a piece of information and it is binding on the candidates as well as on the State including the machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for selection and admission."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 128 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Guru Nanak Dev University vs Parminder Kr. Bansal And Another And ... on 29 April, 1993

10. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 deviated from the Prospectus, which is binding and any deviation from the same was illegal. As per the Prospectus, under Stage-II "departmental clinical/practical/lab based assessment" was to be carried out. However, vide email dated 13.12.2025, the petitioner received a Google Meet link for the „interview‟ for Stage-II, being a CV-based W.P.(C) 19812/2025 Page 5 of 31 Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:27.02.2026 12:45:56 interview which is not same as "clinical/practical/lab based assessment". Substituting clinical/practical/lab based assessment with an online CV interview constituted arbitrariness and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983 SC 580; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 and Varun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1133.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 180 - Full Document

Varun Kumar Agarwal vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 March, 2011

34. The petitioner‟s primary contention is that the Prospectus says "departmental clinical/practical/lab based assessment", whereas what was conducted was a CV and PowerPoint Presentation based interview. At this point it is crucial to refer to precedents which have dealt with such situations of sanctity of selection process when Prospectus or brochure have been deviated. A Division Bench of this Court in Varun Kumar Agarwal (supra), while dealing with a very similar issue observed numerous judgments in this regards and held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 23 - D Misra - Full Document

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

Even, in Ramesh Chandra Shah (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the respondents participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge that the recruitment was made under the General rules and had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board. In the present case, the deviation is from the Prospectus detailing the selection process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 434 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Secy (Health) Deptt Of Health And F.W. ... vs Dr. Anita Puri And Ors on 30 August, 1996

40. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have placed reliance on Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W (supra) and Lila Dhar (supra), to contend that CVs are assessed to evaluate cumulative work done by the candidates over the course of their careers. However, the said both judgements are distinguishable on W.P.(C) 19812/2025 Page 21 of 31 Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:27.02.2026 12:45:56 facts. In Secy. (Health) Deptt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 78 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Lila Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 August, 1981

40. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have placed reliance on Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W (supra) and Lila Dhar (supra), to contend that CVs are assessed to evaluate cumulative work done by the candidates over the course of their careers. However, the said both judgements are distinguishable on W.P.(C) 19812/2025 Page 21 of 31 Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:27.02.2026 12:45:56 facts. In Secy. (Health) Deptt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 295 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Sanchit Bansal & Anr vs Joint Admission Board & Ors on 11 October, 2011

19. Lastly, it is submitted that the views of subject expert/academic decision or the decision making process does not warrant any interference as the same was not arbitrary and they are experts in their filed. The Court should not substitute its own views with those of subject experts. The board comprised of seven distinguished professors/ HODs who comprehensively conducted and analysed the selection process. Reliance is placed on Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board, (2012) 1 SCC 157, IIT Kharagpur v. Soutrik W.P.(C) 19812/2025 Page 9 of 31 Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:27.02.2026 12:45:56 Sarangi, (2021) 17 SCC 79 and Deepak Suresh Kumar v. AIIMS, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8946.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 131 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next