Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)Sivanandan C.T. vs High Court Of Kerala on 14 November, 2017
In view of the
same, the case of Sivanandan C.T. (supra) was also referred to a larger Bench to
be heard along with Tej Prakash Pathak (supra).
Ashok Kumar & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 September, 2018
Even in the first legal notice dated
05.03.2018 (evidently year has wrongly been typed as 2018. It should have been
2019), no grievance was articulated with regard to the selection process and all that
was said was that having regard to their performance, they ought to have been
selected. It was only in the legal notice dated 30.03.2018 (again year is wrongly
typed as 2018 instead of 2019), which was issued recalling back the earlier legal
notice, that the aspects regarding Notification dated 03.04.2018 and change of
marks and duration of examination time were raised. It is crystal clear from the
Page 18 of 19
W.P. (C) No.16 of 2019
(Mr. Choda Bhutia & Ors. Vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.)
decision in Ashok Kumar (supra) and the number of judgments referred to therein
that a candidate, who had willingly participated in a selection process, cannot turn
around and complain that the process of selection was wrong or unfair or not in
accordance with law after knowing of his or her non-selection. The principles of
estoppel operate against such candidates. The candidates cannot be allowed to
approbate and reprobate at the same time.
N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. T. Devin Katti (supra) had laid down that a
candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not
acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in
accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he
does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the
rules, which existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that
limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection process
unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature.
Secy (Health) Deptt Of Health And F.W. ... vs Dr. Anita Puri And Ors on 30 August, 1996
In Dr. Anita Puri (supra), one of the questions that had fallen for
consideration was whether sub-division of marks by the Public Service Commission
on different facets and awarding only 2½ marks for higher qualification can be said
to be arbitrary? This question has not fallen for consideration in this case as it is not
the case of any of the parties that any mark on account of weightage for higher
qualification was earmarked.
Prakash Chandra Verma And Anr vs Smt. Kesari Bai And Ors 36 Mac/1315/2014 ... on 23 February, 2018
In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [Chandra Prakash
Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] , this
Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an
examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful,
a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition
challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared
and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that
the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the
result is not palatable.
Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v.
S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] , this Court
held that: (SCC p. 107, para 18)
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken
part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down
therein were not entitled to question the same.
Munindra Kumar And Ors. Etc vs Rajiv Govil And Ors Etc on 10 May, 1991
(See Munindra Kumar
v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission
[Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724 :
Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001
In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, the criteria for
selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the
selection process has commenced.
Mahashya Chunni Lal Sar.Bal Man.S.S.S ... vs Madan Lal Arora on 24 November, 2015
Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in
Madan Lal v. State of J&K [Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC
486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712] , Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P.
[Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC
(L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [Dhananjay Malik
v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005 :