Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.51 seconds)
Sumit Jairam Kode vs M/O Defence on 27 July, 2018 cites

Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015

29. The respondents have referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.(supra); Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.(supra), and Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors.(surpa) by which it has been held that having consciously taken part in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot later gain a right to challenge the criteria or the process of selection including the advertisement and the methodology and in that sense, as summarised in the decision, there is an estoppel which operates against the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 283 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986

29. The respondents have referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.(supra); Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.(supra), and Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors.(surpa) by which it has been held that having consciously taken part in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot later gain a right to challenge the criteria or the process of selection including the advertisement and the methodology and in that sense, as summarised in the decision, there is an estoppel which operates against the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 652 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Jyoti K.K. And Ors. vs Kerala Public Service Commission And ... on 13 March, 2002

Considering the results that have been presented by respondents and the fact that 80% cut-off was fixed for the SSLC marks to shortlist candidates, there is certainly a hypothetical possibility that the applicant could have come into the zone of consideration if only the qualifications mentioned in SRO 31/2017 read with the law as settled in K.K. Jyoti & Ors. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission(supra) had been taken into account by elimination of applicants with SSC alone. The applicant has probably adopted that hypothetical situation to claim a right by which he has filed this application challenging the SRO applied. However, given that the applicant scored 5.2% less than the cut-off level adopted of 80%, his position may still be hazardous. Pointedly, he also never claimed any qualification other than SSC. Further, as an incidental observation on the interpretations by both parties, it is 39 OA No. 720 of 2017 clear that variations between the Recruitment Rules adopted in any particular case as against the Recruitment Rules that are in force are neither to be approved by the Hon'ble President nor can it clearly be done by the Administrative Department itself but as specified in FAQs of DoPT referred both by applicants and by respondents at Serial No. 7, such relaxation needs to be done in consultation with DoPT and also the UPSC, where relevant. In this case, however, these issues become germane only after considering the aspects raised by respondents of non-joinder of parties and of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 232 - Full Document

Madan Lal vs State Of J&K; And Others on 6 June, 2018

29. The respondents have referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.(supra); Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K & Ors.(supra), and Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors.(surpa) by which it has been held that having consciously taken part in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot later gain a right to challenge the criteria or the process of selection including the advertisement and the methodology and in that sense, as summarised in the decision, there is an estoppel which operates against the applicant.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ahmedalli Abdulhusein Kaka And Anr. vs M.D. Lalkaka And Ors. on 18 February, 1953

Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Ors.(supra); Khetrabasi Biswal Vs. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.(supra) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ahmedalli Vs. M.D. Lalkaka(supra) and the Nagpur High Court in Kanglu Baula Vs. Chief Executive Officer(supra). As these have been discussed as presented by the respondents, the essential aspect that 41 OA No. 720 of 2017 needs to be considered is that the applicant's challenge to the rule, as reflected in the advertisement, continues to apply right from the date of the advertisement until the conclusion of the selection. However, once the shortlist was prepared and as in this case, the provisional list of selected candidates was published and the applicant mounted a challenge against the selection after determining that he was not selected, the selected candidates in that list acquired a vested right to be considered for appointment.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - B P Sinha - Full Document

The General Manager, South Central ... vs A.V.R. Siddhanti And Ors. on 1 September, 1971

27. The learned counsel for applicant argued based on the decisions of the 40 OA No. 720 of 2017 Hon'ble Apex Court in the The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Anr. Vs. A.V.R. Sinddhantti & Ors.(supra) and A.Janardhana Vs. Union of India & Ors.(supra) that they were only challenging the validity of policy decisions with reference to the Rules and the violation of the Rules by the respondents by not adopting the later SRO of 31/2017 which became effective from 29.04.2017 and have instead continued to apply the previous SRO 43/2012.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

Khetrabasi Biswal vs Ajaya Kumar Baral And Ors on 20 November, 2003

Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Ors.(supra); Khetrabasi Biswal Vs. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors.(supra) and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ahmedalli Vs. M.D. Lalkaka(supra) and the Nagpur High Court in Kanglu Baula Vs. Chief Executive Officer(supra). As these have been discussed as presented by the respondents, the essential aspect that 41 OA No. 720 of 2017 needs to be considered is that the applicant's challenge to the rule, as reflected in the advertisement, continues to apply right from the date of the advertisement until the conclusion of the selection. However, once the shortlist was prepared and as in this case, the provisional list of selected candidates was published and the applicant mounted a challenge against the selection after determining that he was not selected, the selected candidates in that list acquired a vested right to be considered for appointment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 43 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Public Service Commission vs Tarsem Lal on 10 May, 2013

The respondents have also cited decisions of the Apex Court in in Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand & Ors.(supra) and Haryana Public Service Commission Vs. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.(supra) where, in the latter case, it was held that although the criterion adopted might have been defective 45 OA No. 720 of 2017 but it was applied uniformly and therefore, no prejudice was caused to the respondents. In these circumstances and by virtue of the settled law on the subject, the applicants challenge to the advertisement, the Rules adopted in the advertisement and the methodology adopted by the respondents for the selection process is clearly not maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 May, 2000

13. The applicant also refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-I, Bangalore[AIR 2000 SC 2178] in C.A. No. 9104 of 1995, decided on 11.05.2000 which reiterated the law laid down that Courts cannot direct that circular should be given 21 OA No. 720 of 2017 effect to and not the law laid down by the High Court or Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 75 - S R Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 Next