Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Rahul Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 30 March, 2022 cites

Pankaj Kumar Pandey @ Pankaj Pandey & ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 28 January, 2019

However, the order passed in the said W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 was challenged before Division Bench of this Court by filing L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others) and during the pendency of the said appeal, the JPSC announced the date for Main examination scheduled from 28.01.2019 to 01.02.2019, which was brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Division Bench but no stay was granted, as such Main examination was conducted. The said L.P.A. was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2019 and the resolution dated 12.02.2018 and also the consequent revised results published by the JPSC on 06.08.2018 declaring 34,634 candidates successful, was quashed. It was further directed that since the written examinations have already been held, the respondent-JPSC is directed to publish the results of 7 the Main Examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in its first revised results published on 11.08.2017.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - A Bose - Full Document

Justice (Retired) Prasun Kumar Deb ... vs Dr. Virendra Singh And Others on 29 January, 2010

8. Admittedly, the 6th Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2016 was set at motion by issuance of advertisement, being Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 whereby candidates were invited to participate in the preliminary examination. Accordingly the 13 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination, result of which was published on 23.02.2017, in which, total 5138 candidates were shortlisted. But, after publication of the result, the JPSC issued one press release on 02.03.2017, in which, it was clarified that the candidates totaling 15 times the vacant posts and those who have obtained similar marks, have been shortlisted for the Main Examination with further clarification that benefit of reservation is not applicable in the Preliminary Examination and no category-wise cut-off marks have been notified. The consequence of such decision was that the petitioners were declared successful and the last candidate who got selected in Preliminary Examination obtained 206 marks out of 400 marks. The candidates of 15 times of the advertised posts were declared successful in the preliminary examination to appear for the Main Examination. Thus, the ratio of 15 times of the vacancies for short-listing the candidates for Main Examination was decided in pursuance to resolution dated 13.04.2016, however, the aforesaid result of Preliminary Examination was challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors].
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kumod Kumar & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 18 December, 2014

In W.P.(S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & -24- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters another v. State of Jharkhand & Others), the prayer was made for quashing the circular being memo no. 1153 dated 12.02.2018, whereby, it was decided that the candidates, who have secured minimum qualifying marks in their respective categories shall be selected for Mains examination in the 6th Combined Civil Service Examination in pursuance to Advertisement no.23/2016.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr.) And Others vs State Of Orissa And Others on 8 September, 1995

The learned Single Judge 17 considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 1 and the judgment in the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 261 and other judgments came to the conclusion that no case is made out by the petitioners for interference and dismissed the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 142 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors vs Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors on 14 September, 2006

The same was tested before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.399 of 2018. The said order is on record as Annexure-8 at page 63 of this writ petition. The circular dated 12.02.2018 has been considered in detail by the Division Bench in paragraph 21 of the order of the L.P.A. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said order, the Division Bench has also considered the grounds for issuance of the said resolution. Article 320 of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Division Bench at paragraph 27 of the said judgment and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar (supra) and the judgment rendered in the case of P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 497, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that so far as the earlier resolution of the State Government as contained in memo no.5562 dated 19.04.2017 is concerned, the same was approved by the High Court in Deb Kumar's case (supra) decided on 25.07.2017 which was followed by the JPSC by publishing the revised result on 11.08.2017 declaring 6103 candidates successful for appearing in the Mains examination and the resolution dated 12.02.2018 issued by the State -25- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters Government was quashed by the Division Bench and directed the JPSC to publish the result of the Mains examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in the first revised results published on 11.08.2017 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The said judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in S.L.P.(C) No.726 of 2020 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2020 has been pleased to dismiss the said S.L.P. In light of the judgment 18 passed by the Division Bench, the JPSC published the result of the Mains examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in the first revised results published on 11.08.2017, which was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the finality attained with regard to the said order and after dismissal of the S.L.P., this writ petition has been filed. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to the petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived which is fit to be dismissed with cost, but the Court is not imposing the cost, considering the petitioners are aspirants of the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 173 - S B Sinha - Full Document

P. Mohanan Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 23 February, 2007

The same was tested before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.399 of 2018. The said order is on record as Annexure-8 at page 63 of this writ petition. The circular dated 12.02.2018 has been considered in detail by the Division Bench in paragraph 21 of the order of the L.P.A. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said order, the Division Bench has also considered the grounds for issuance of the said resolution. Article 320 of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Division Bench at paragraph 27 of the said judgment and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar (supra) and the judgment rendered in the case of P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 497, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that so far as the earlier resolution of the State Government as contained in memo no.5562 dated 19.04.2017 is concerned, the same was approved by the High Court in Deb Kumar's case (supra) decided on 25.07.2017 which was followed by the JPSC by publishing the revised result on 11.08.2017 declaring 6103 candidates successful for appearing in the Mains examination and the resolution dated 12.02.2018 issued by the State -25- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters Government was quashed by the Division Bench and directed the JPSC to publish the result of the Mains examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in the first revised results published on 11.08.2017 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The said judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in S.L.P.(C) No.726 of 2020 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2020 has been pleased to dismiss the said S.L.P. In light of the judgment 18 passed by the Division Bench, the JPSC published the result of the Mains examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in the first revised results published on 11.08.2017, which was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the finality attained with regard to the said order and after dismissal of the S.L.P., this writ petition has been filed. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to the petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived which is fit to be dismissed with cost, but the Court is not imposing the cost, considering the petitioners are aspirants of the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 348 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair vs Narayanan Nair And Ors on 6 February, 2004

The Court also finds force in the argument of Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for respondent no.6 in light of the facts that the aforesaid I.As. have not been pressed and the petitioners have already abundantly claimed without the leave of the Court, which has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in the case of Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair & Ors. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 130 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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

In this regard, the law is well settled that once a candidate is found to be unsuccessful even at the subsequent stage he cannot be allowed to turn around and question any notification/circular/terms & conditions of the advertisement, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Others (Supra), [(1976) 3 SCC 585] at paragraph 15, which reads as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 411 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next