Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
High Court Of Hyderabad For The State Of ... vs P. Murali Mohana Reddy And Ors. Etc. on 25 January, 2019 cites

Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 1985

14) We may mention at the outset that the High Court is right to the extent that the appointments are to be made in terms of stipulations contained in the advertisement. Though, such terms can be changed, but that has to be done in terms of statutory Rules. Insofar as advertisement is concerned, there was no mention of securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test. The High 2 Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 721; A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr., (1983) 3 SCC 33; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467 and Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 737. 11 Court is also right in pointing out that Rule 6 of the Rules does not contains any provision of securing minimum qualifying marks in the interview. At the same time, it stipulates qualifying aggregate marks in written examination and viva voce, as 40% for general category, 35% for backward category and 30% for SC/ST category in the written examination. This requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination was fulfilled by the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 277 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

A.A. Calton vs The Director Of Education & Another on 25 March, 1983

14) We may mention at the outset that the High Court is right to the extent that the appointments are to be made in terms of stipulations contained in the advertisement. Though, such terms can be changed, but that has to be done in terms of statutory Rules. Insofar as advertisement is concerned, there was no mention of securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test. The High 2 Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 721; A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr., (1983) 3 SCC 33; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467 and Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 737. 11 Court is also right in pointing out that Rule 6 of the Rules does not contains any provision of securing minimum qualifying marks in the interview. At the same time, it stipulates qualifying aggregate marks in written examination and viva voce, as 40% for general category, 35% for backward category and 30% for SC/ST category in the written examination. This requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination was fulfilled by the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 252 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Ors vs Mithilesh Kumar on 19 August, 2010

14) We may mention at the outset that the High Court is right to the extent that the appointments are to be made in terms of stipulations contained in the advertisement. Though, such terms can be changed, but that has to be done in terms of statutory Rules. Insofar as advertisement is concerned, there was no mention of securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test. The High 2 Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 721; A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr., (1983) 3 SCC 33; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467 and Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 737. 11 Court is also right in pointing out that Rule 6 of the Rules does not contains any provision of securing minimum qualifying marks in the interview. At the same time, it stipulates qualifying aggregate marks in written examination and viva voce, as 40% for general category, 35% for backward category and 30% for SC/ST category in the written examination. This requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination was fulfilled by the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 101 - A Kabir - Full Document

Arunachal Pradesh Public Serv.Comm.& ... vs Tage Habung & Ors on 1 May, 2013

14) We may mention at the outset that the High Court is right to the extent that the appointments are to be made in terms of stipulations contained in the advertisement. Though, such terms can be changed, but that has to be done in terms of statutory Rules. Insofar as advertisement is concerned, there was no mention of securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test. The High 2 Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 721; A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr., (1983) 3 SCC 33; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467 and Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 737. 11 Court is also right in pointing out that Rule 6 of the Rules does not contains any provision of securing minimum qualifying marks in the interview. At the same time, it stipulates qualifying aggregate marks in written examination and viva voce, as 40% for general category, 35% for backward category and 30% for SC/ST category in the written examination. This requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination was fulfilled by the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 22 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008

14) We may mention at the outset that the High Court is right to the extent that the appointments are to be made in terms of stipulations contained in the advertisement. Though, such terms can be changed, but that has to be done in terms of statutory Rules. Insofar as advertisement is concerned, there was no mention of securing minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test. The High 2 Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 721; A.A. Calton v. Director of Education & Anr., (1983) 3 SCC 33; K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mithilesh Kumar, (2010) 13 SCC 467 and Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Tage Habung & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 737. 11 Court is also right in pointing out that Rule 6 of the Rules does not contains any provision of securing minimum qualifying marks in the interview. At the same time, it stipulates qualifying aggregate marks in written examination and viva voce, as 40% for general category, 35% for backward category and 30% for SC/ST category in the written examination. This requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination was fulfilled by the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 638 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Brij Mohan Lal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2002

2) The issue of appointment of such Adhoc Judges came up for consideration before this Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors.1 whereby this Court prescribed the modalities and procedure to be undertaken for absorption of such Judges on regular basis. It included qualifying test as well as viva voce test. Pursuant to these directions, the appellant herein, namely, High Court held the qualifying examination and also conducted interviews. These four persons (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondents’) were considered not qualified for absorption on regular basis. The respondents, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the appellant, had challenged the same in the aforesaid two writ petitions which have been allowed in the following terms:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 246 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1