Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 April, 2008
The appellant also relied upon the following observations of one of us
(Raveendran, J.) at para 653 of Ashoka Kumar Thakur (supra) :
Dr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal And Ors. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 16 November, 1990
"So far as the validity of the admission rules fixing 50% marks for the
general category candidates and 40% marks for the SC/ST category
candidates to be obtained at the entrance examination as minimum
qualifying marks for being eligible for admission to the Post-Graduate
medical courses, the same are not subject to any challenge ........
".... It may be further mentioned that this Court in Ajay Kumar Agrawal
and Ors. v. State of U.P. [1991 (1) SCC 636] observed as under:-
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors vs Dr. Anupam Gupta Etc on 13 February, 1992
3. The matter again came up for consideration before this Court and in
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp. 1 SCC
594], it was held as under:-
Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 10 August, 1999
31. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra)
observed as follows :
Ombir Singh And Others Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Another Etc.Etc on 30 July, 1992
(emphasis supplied)
24.4) In Ombir Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 64] this
court while upholding the prescription of 50% and 40% respectively as the
minimum eligibility marks in the qualifying examination followed the
decisions in Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Dr.Anupam Gupta by relying upon
and reiterating the passages in those decisions which use the words cut-off
marks to refer to qualifying marks. We extract below the relevant portions of
the said decision:
Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
24.5) In Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi - (2008) 7 SCC 11, we
find that this Court has used the words `cut-off marks' to refer to describe
`minimum qualifying marks' following Justice Shetty Commission Report
which also used the term `cut-off marks' while referring to `minimum
qualifying marks'. In that case, the advertisement inviting applications stated
that "minimum qualifying marks in the written examination shall be 55% for
general candidates and 50% for SC and ST candidates". The subsequent
resolution of the full court provided that the "minimum qualifying marks in
viva voce will be 55% for general candidates and 50% for SC/ST candidates.
All India Judges Association And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 March, 2002
25 to 30 minutes for each candidate. What is recommended by the
Commission is that the vive-voce test shall carry 50 marks and there shall
be no cut off marks in vive-voce test.- This Court notices that in All-India
Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India - (2002) 4 SCC 247,
subject to the various modifications indicated in the said decision, the
other recommendations of the Shetty Commission (supra) were accepted
by this Court. It means that prescription of cut off marks at vive-voce test
by the respondent was not in accordance with the decision of this Court."
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
24.6) In K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. - (2008) 3 SCC 512, this Court used
the words `cut-off percentage' to refer to minimum qualifying marks. The
relevant portion is extracted below :
Parveen Jindal And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 16 March, 1993
In Parveen Jindal v. State of Haryana [1993
Supp. (4) SCC 70] this court referred to Rule 7 of the Haryana Service of
Engineers Class I, PWD (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964 which prescribes
the qualifying marks, relevant portion of which is extracted below: