Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors vs Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao Etc on 30 January, 1996
26. Coming to first of the decisions relied upon by the counsel
for Petitioners i.e., The Chairman, State Level Police
Recruitment Board, Hyderabad and two others v.
B.Sambasiva Rao, (1 supra) the issue that fell for consideration
was whether the reservation earmarked for special categories
under the Rules should be treated as vertical reservation on
horizontal reservation. The paragraph No.1 of the Judgment
states the issue that fell for consideration and the same in
extracted below :
State Of Orissa vs Mohd. Yunus on 17 September, 1993
22. As regards the Ex-servicemen, the term is defined in
Rule 2(16) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996
and the same includes retired army/navy/air force personnel
earning their pension, a person retired on medical grounds and
awarded medical pension/disability pension, person released on
reduction in establishment and persons released from service
after specific period of service including members of territorial
army. A reading of Rule 2(16) would indicate that Ex-servicemen
form a distinct class and there is merit in being provided relaxed
physical parameters as they do not fall in the age bracket of the
general category unlike Home Guards. As a class and not as
individuals, there is nothing in common between Home Guards
208
and Ex-servicemen and the Judgement of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court vis-a-vis Ex-servicemen in State of Orissa v. Mohd.Yunus
and others3 would not be of any avail.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Dharam Bir on 8 June, 1998
23. It is too well known that the Courts cannot bypass the
statutory requirements and direct appointment as that would
amount to altering the Recruitment Rule as held by Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir4,. The Paragraph
31 thereof is relevant and extracted below;
State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Arvindkumar T.Tiwari & Anr on 14 September, 2012
24. After referring to the above judgement, a similar view was
taken in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari5. The
relevant part of the judgement at paragraph 12 is extracted
below.
Ranjan Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 April, 2014
35. Issue (b): The notification in question was issued on
28.11.2022. The Petitioners who had knowingly applied and
214
participated in the selection process are raising the dispute with
regard to the correctness of the physical tests after their
disqualification in the physical tests. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar6, after referring to earlier cases
on this aspect held that candidates cannot question the selection
after taking part in the same. The paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17
are extracted below.
Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986
In this connection, it is
apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla15. In the said case
a three-Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the
petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the
examination without protest and filed the petition only
after he realised that he would not succeed in the
examination, held that the writ petitioner should not
have been granted any relief by the High Court.
Madan Lal vs State Of J&K on 6 August, 1997
Akhilesh Kumar Shukla15 it has been clearly laid
down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this
Court that when the petitioner appeared at the
examination without protest and when he found that
he would not succeed in examination he filed a
petition challenging the said examination, the High
Court should not have granted any relief to such a
petitioner."