Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Article 315 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A.P.Public Service Commission vs Baloji Badhavath & Ors on 8 April, 2009
25. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates
is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be
arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior
courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed
Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S.
JafferSaheb [(1985) 2 APLJ 380] . Per se, it did not commit any
illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed
hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The
matter, however, would be different if the said Rules per se are
found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of
Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a
right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying
down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can
be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or
wholly unfair."
Dr. Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 4 July, 2012
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2391 of 2022 has
also put reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered
in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 9217 of 2018) wherein it was observed on the basis
of the advertisement dated October, 2016 that 40 percent marks was
mixed as minimum qualifying marks in the preliminary examination as
opposed to marks of two separate papers in that examination and
appellant before the Supreme Court had got 40 percent marks in the
aggregate insofar as the two papers were concerned. However, a
committee of the State Government while clarifying the supposed
ambiguity in the advertisement, opined with respect to "preliminary
examination" mentioned in the advertisement which was that a candidate
had to get 40 per cent minimum marks in each paper. Their Lordships
have held that if there was any ambiguity in the advertisement, the same
must fall in favour of the candidate who goes by the advertisement as it
originally stood.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Buildings Construction ... vs S. Raghunathan & Ors., S. P. Singh & Ors on 28 August, 1998
7. Mr. Soren, in support of his submission, puts reliance on a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Building
Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan reported in (1998) 7
SCC 66, wherein it has been held that the doctrine of "Legitimate
Expectation" has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The
Government and its functionaries, in administering the affairs of the
country are expected to honour their statements of policy and to treat the
citizens with impartial consideration without any iota of abuse of
discretion.
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chairman, All Railway Rec. Board & Anr vs K. Shyam Kumar & Ors on 6 May, 2010
22. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners have put reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Chairman, All India Railway Rec. Board and Another Vs. K. Shyam
Kumar and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 614 wherein it has been
held as under:-
1