Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sadananda Halo & Others vs Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others on 27 February, 2008
15. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal
Additional Advocate General No.-I, has next relied on a
Supreme Court's decision, in case of Sadananda Halo &
Ors. Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Ors., reported in (2008)
4 Supreme Court Cases 619, and has submitted that
learned single Judge by the judgment and order, under
appeal, has rightly dismissed the writ applications as there is
no material irregularity or illegality, which can be said to have
been committed in the process of selection, rendering entire
selection process illegal. It is his submission that there is no
allegation of any mala fide against the Members of the
Selection Board nor agaisnt the persons involved in the
process of selection. He has, accordingly, submitted that it is
not the case of the appellants that any candidate, who
secured marks less than what the appellants had secured in
the written examination, has been selected.
Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Veerendra Kr.Gautam And Ors vs Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay And Ors on 15 July, 2016
20. The decision of the Supreme Court in case
of Veerendra Kr. Gautam (supra) has no application in the
facts and circumstances of the present batch of cases and is
clearly distinguishable for the simple reason that in
Veerendra Kr. Gautam (supra), there were specific
allegations made against selected candidates showing
palpable irregularities and illegalities committed by them. In
the present batch of cases, more than 7,00,000 candidates
had participated in the process of the selection and, finally,
more than 11,000 candidates have been declared successful;
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Moni & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 January, 2016
19. Secondly, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned
Principal Additional Advocate General No.-I, has rightly
referred to our decision in case of Moni (supra), wherein we
have held that the process of selection cannot be cancelled
on the plea that the State-respondents had taken various
action against many of the candidates, who were found using
unfair means in the process of selection. We held in the said
decision that such actions, taken by the State-respodnents,
were indicative of the fact that the authorities were vigilant
and it was because of such vigilance that the discrepancies
and malpractices could be detected. We reiterate that the
said decision is in respect of the same selection process
conducted by the Selection Board.
1