Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.57 seconds)
High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad vs Robin Singh And 44 Others on 22 July, 2022 cites

Robin And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 June, 2022

47. Since we have already held that all information about the conduct of the test had been disclosed to the candidates in the advertisement and the materials attached therewith the writ petitions at the instance of the unsuccessful candidates are not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. Consequently, all the writ petitions tagged along with these bunch of Appeals under order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice are dismissed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

G. Sarana vs University Of Lucknow & Ors on 28 July, 1976

"44. ....... Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his subsequent order of appointment dated 15-7-1992 issued by the Governor had not been challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the mainstream on the basis of option given to him, he cannot turn back and challenge the conditions. He could have opted not to join at all but he did not do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly held that the appellant is estopped and precluded from questioning the said order dated 14-1-1992. The application of principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence has been considered by us in many cases, one of them being G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow......."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 411 - J Singh - Full Document

K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006

28. Besides, in K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 in paragraph 72 and 74 it was held that candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel."
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 362 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Sadananda Halo & Others vs Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others on 27 February, 2008

We do not approve of such conduct, however, since we otherwise find no merit in the writ petitions and hold them not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in 1995(3) SCC 486, Sadananda Halo & Others Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others, reported in 2008(4) SCC 619, Ramesh Chandra Shah & Others Vs. Anil Joshi & Others, reported in 2013 (11) SCC 309, wherein the Apex Court has observed that unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the examination process, could not turn back and assail the selection process only because the result of the examination is not palatable to them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 185 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013

In Ramesh Chandra Shah (Supra), wherein candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapists in the State of Uttarakhand participated in a written examination, the Apex Court in pursuance of the advertisement, observed that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process as to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. The Apex Court observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 434 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 Next