Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
K.Anbazhagan vs The Director on 20 October, 2022 cites

K.V. Kadiresan & Com., By Partner K.V. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Reptd, By The ... on 14 June, 1984

The subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P(MD)No.24198 of 2022 322 (V.Lavanya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others) proceeds on the premise that an authoritative pronouncement had been rendered in Tej Prakash Pathak's case which is actually not the case. I am, therefore, inclined to follow Mithilesh Kumar's case.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013

The subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P(MD)No.24198 of 2022 322 (V.Lavanya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others) proceeds on the premise that an authoritative pronouncement had been rendered in Tej Prakash Pathak's case which is actually not the case. I am, therefore, inclined to follow Mithilesh Kumar's case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 150 - Full Document

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

7.In my view, introduction of Sub Rule 3 added an additional ground of disqualification. This rule was not in the rule book, when the writ petitioner applied in response to the recruitment notification. As rightly pointed out by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P(MD)No.24198 of 2022 the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, his rights will have to be governed by the rule position that prevailed when the selection process commenced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2010) 13 SCC 467 (State of Bihar and Others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar) held that the norms or rules that existed on the date when the process of selection begun will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process, unless the same was given retrospective effect. A careful reading of G.O(Ms)No.386, dated 14.09.2021 indicates that it was not meant to operative retrospectively but only prospectively. The learned Additional Advocate General placed heavy reliance on the decision reported Tej Prakash Pathak's case supra. Though the said decision is fairly supportive of the stand now taken by the respondent, the final paragraph indicates that no authoritative pronouncement was made. The said decision concludes as follows “whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the “rules of the game” stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement”. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench and the decision is still awaited. Therefore, I have to necessarily come to the conclusion that no definitive pronouncement was rendered in the said decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 101 - A Kabir - Full Document
1