Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.28 seconds)
SPA/37/2022 on 18 July, 2022 cites

Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980

In Keshav Ram Pal (Dr) v. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad referring to the view taken by this Court in Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi that the importance to be attached to the interview-test must be minimal, this Court commented that in the case of services to which recruitment had necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview-test might be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied and that subjecting such persons to a written examination might yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from it being an act of cruelty to those persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1343 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Siya Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 1997

In Siya Ram v. Union of India one of the grounds of attack was that the rules regarding selection for the post of Chief Personnel Inspector in Railways, permitted only oral test in the form of viva voce and no written examination was held. It was contended that the result of a selection merely on the basis of viva voce could not be reasonably fair and was liable to lead to arbitrariness. There, out of 100 marks, 50 were allotted for professional ability without prescribing any norms.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 19 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Minor A. Peeriakaruppan And Sobha ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 23 September, 1970

"22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview-test has to be decided on the facts of each case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for 9 interview does not arise. Therefore, we think it an exercise in futility to discuss these cases -- Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi -- relied upon by Mr Goswami, which deal with admission to educational institutions/schools and also cases where prescribed method of recruitment was written test followed by an interview -- Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana; D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India and Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985

"22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview-test has to be decided on the facts of each case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for 9 interview does not arise. Therefore, we think it an exercise in futility to discuss these cases -- Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi -- relied upon by Mr Goswami, which deal with admission to educational institutions/schools and also cases where prescribed method of recruitment was written test followed by an interview -- Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana; D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India and Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 998 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

D.V. Bakshi And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others on 14 July, 1993

"22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview-test has to be decided on the facts of each case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for 9 interview does not arise. Therefore, we think it an exercise in futility to discuss these cases -- Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi -- relied upon by Mr Goswami, which deal with admission to educational institutions/schools and also cases where prescribed method of recruitment was written test followed by an interview -- Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana; D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India and Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 68 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Krishan Yadav vs State Of Haryana (Mohan J.) on 12 May, 1994

"22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview-test has to be decided on the facts of each case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for 9 interview does not arise. Therefore, we think it an exercise in futility to discuss these cases -- Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi -- relied upon by Mr Goswami, which deal with admission to educational institutions/schools and also cases where prescribed method of recruitment was written test followed by an interview -- Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana; D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India and Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 112 - S Mohan - Full Document

Dr. Keshav Ram Pal, Reader And Head Of ... vs U.P. Higher Education Services ... on 24 January, 1986

In Keshav Ram Pal (Dr) v. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad referring to the view taken by this Court in Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi that the importance to be attached to the interview-test must be minimal, this Court commented that in the case of services to which recruitment had necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview-test might be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied and that subjecting such persons to a written examination might yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from it being an act of cruelty to those persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 50 - O C Reddy - Full Document

A. Peeriakaruppan, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 23 September, 1970

In Keshav Ram Pal (Dr) v. U.P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad referring to the view taken by this Court in Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi that the importance to be attached to the interview-test must be minimal, this Court commented that in the case of services to which recruitment had necessarily to be made from persons of mature personality, interview-test might be the only way, subject to basic and essential academic and professional requirements being satisfied and that subjecting such persons to a written examination might yield unfruitful and negative results, apart from it being an act of cruelty to those persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 62 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 Next