Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Sdas vs (Dismissed) on 4 February, 2026 cites

Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna & Ors vs Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal & Ors on 5 July, 2011

5. Mr. Bose has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 7 SCC 308 (Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna & Ors. Vs. Modh. Vinaykumar Dasrathlal & Ors.) to buttress his point that in a similar matter where the cut off mark in a viva voce was not specified in advertisement, the right course of action would be to fix the cut off mark and notify the candidates called for the interview. This case is distinguishable on facts since in that particular case there was a specific rule that the cut off marks have to be framed and advertised, which is not so in the present case. Cut off marks had been fixed and had a basis, which is pari materia with the pass marks in the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (25 out of 100). Thus, the same parameter has been fixed herein (2.5 out of 10). Thus, the petitioner cannot and indeed does not challenge the cut off marks as fixed. There is absolutely no anomaly in fixing the cut off marks and the alleged non-disclosure of the same cannot be a ground to set aside the entire process, which has already come to an end.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 34 - A Alam - Full Document

Mahesh Chand Bareth vs The State Of Rajasthan State Of ... on 11 May, 2023

12. The decision relied upon by Mr. Bandopadhyay of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2024) 8 SCC 124 (Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has held in no uncertain terms that parameters of qualifying marks not being in the public domain cannot be a ground for disrupting the entire process of appointment. The parameters set forth by the concerned authority has been followed uniformly without any discrepancy between any of the participating candidates. The petitioner had participated in the process and no prejudice has been caused to him, even it is assumed that the parameters of qualifying marks in second round were not in public domain.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - S Kant - Full Document

Nabakanta Jana vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 February, 2019

9. From the decisions of Nabanita Jana and Animesh Bandopadhyay (supra), it has been clearly held that in these matters the Selection Committee would have the discretion to evolve a criteria of computer knowledge. This is a Panel/committee of experts and having deliberated and decided on an issue pertaining to the cut-off marks, prior to the advertisement, it would not be proper for the Courts to interfere.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document

Animesh Bandyopadhyay vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 May, 2016

8. He has also relied upon three decisions, two of this Hon'ble Court rendered in MAT 2347 of 2023 (Nabanita Jana Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), MAT 1886 of 2025 (Animesh Bandyopadhyay Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the other one is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 600 (Jai Singh Dalal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) and (2024) 8 SCC 124.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document
1