Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. Etc on 30 January, 1974
In this regard, they have relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad vs. A.V.R. Siddhanti 1974 (4) SCC 348, wherein it was held that once, having appeared in the examination, cannot be allowed to later challenge the procedure of selection. Again in Suneeta Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana and Others in 2000 (2) SCC 615, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:-
Suneeta Aggrwal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 February, 2000
In this regard, they have relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, South Central Railway Secunderabad vs. A.V.R. Siddhanti 1974 (4) SCC 348, wherein it was held that once, having appeared in the examination, cannot be allowed to later challenge the procedure of selection. Again in Suneeta Aggarwal vs. State of Haryana and Others in 2000 (2) SCC 615, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:-
Gunjan Sinha Jain vs Registrar General,High Court Of Delhi on 9 April, 2012
Again, it in its judgment in the case of Gunajan Sinha Jain Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi [Writ Petition (C ) No.499/2012 and other connected cases] decided by the Delhi High Court on 09.04.2012, if there are more than one correct option for any question, such question should be removed from the examination. However, if such a direction is given to Respondents in the case, the earlier result of LDCE held on 10.08.2008 will get upset for the sake of the three Applicants in the OA. Again, it is not practically possible for upsetting the result after 6 years giving direction in respect of question related to Reinforcement Cement Concrete and Steel Table.
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
1