Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Shweta Jaswal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 27 February, 2016 cites

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

The petitioners thereafter approached this Court and the first petition, in the present bunch of cases was filed on 06.02.2016 and the last on 16.02.2016 after the above said observations. The case of the petitioners herein also is that they are falling short of 1.5 to 2 marks and if benefit of that one question is given, the petitioners would score 2.5 marks and sail through to qualify for the cut off of the main examination. It has been accordingly argued that the principle of equality as such would be violated SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.02.29 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 2634 of 2016 5 and since the Board has not appealed against the said judgment, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the same. The judgments relied upon by this Court are being sought to be distinguished on various grounds including that only a period of one month had elapsed since the filing of the writ petition and the declaration of the result.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Satbir Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 14 September, 2005

The judgment of the Division Bench in Satbir Singh's case (supra) pertains to the benefit of giving the work charge period of service SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.02.29 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 2634 of 2016 10 rendered for the purposes of grant of additional increments and it was in such circumstances, the Division Bench said that the benefit is to be given to all and once the principle of law was laid down each and every person was not expected to approach this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 220 - Full Document

K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997

On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 483 - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs Smt. P. Laxmi Devi on 25 February, 2008

Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, has raised the objection that the word 'shall' mentioned in Rule 13 is not mandatory. The Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Laxmi Devi, 2008 (4) SCC 720 while considering the issue of word 'shall' and 'may' has specifically held that use of word 'shall' means that there is no discretion in the authority and it cannot be read as 'may'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 725 - M Katju - Full Document

Sonia Rattan And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 September, 2015

"However, this Court is also restricting the said SHIVANI GUPTA 2016.02.29 16:06 benefit only to the petitioners, since none others had I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 2634 of 2016 4 approached this Court for the said benefits and if the answer key has to be changed, then the other candidates would be adversely affected as some have given the correct answer as option 'd' and it would lead to unsettling the whole issue. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment in Kanpur University's case (supra) and in CWP-24869-2013 titled Sonia Rattan & another Vs. State of Punjab & others, decided on 07.09.2015, wherein also, the relief was only restricted to the persons who had approached this Court and the benefits were not to be given to other candidates.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Anil Sharma And Ors vs Punjab Public Service Commission on 3 February, 2016

It is a matter of record that regarding the above said question, this Court had granted the benefit to the petitioners in CWP No. 858 of 2016, Arashjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another and CWP No. 1192 of 2016 titled Anil Sharma and others vs. Punjab Public Service Commission. A finding was recorded that the answer of the said question no. 10 in booklet series A of paper II was option 'a' and not 'd'. The reasoning given was that there was a patent ambiguity and the question was based on the direction that the passage had to be read and the whole crux lay in the first paragraph which had to be taken into consideration by the candidate. The original record having been examined and the cutting of the opinion of the subject experts was one of the factors which led this Court to opine in favour of the said petitioners. The relevant portion of the reasoning given reads thus:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1