Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors vs Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors on 14 September, 2006
In Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors. [2006
(9) SCALE 298], a rule framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh reducing the
cut-off mark was struck down by this Court, holding :
Vijay Syal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 May, 2003
Reliance placed my Mr. Sree Kumar on Vijay Syal and Another v.
State of Punjab & Others [(2003) 9 SCC 401] runs counter to the submission
of the learned counsel. Therein, the appellants secured less marks than those
whose appointments were in question. In that situation it was held that they
were to be denied appointments on the ground that they were called for in
the interview in the second list, the position of the appellant could not
improve. Allegedly, when those candidates who belonged to Scheduled
Caste and had secured higher marks and in that view of the matter, the
appellant therein could not be selected in the general category.
Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985
In this case allocation of marks for interview was in fact misused. It
not only contravened the ratio laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar
Yadav (supra) and subsequent cases, but in the facts and circumstances of
the case, it is reasonable to draw an inference of favouritism. The power in
this case has been used by the Appointing Authority for unauthorized
purpose.
All India State Bank Officers' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 September, 1996
In the said decision, however, the Bench categorically opined that the
marks allocated for the viva voce should not normally exceed 12.5%
noticing the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of
Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417], All India State Bank Officers' Federation v.
Union of India [(1997) 9 SCC 151] as also Jasvinder Singh v. State of J&K
[(2003) 2 SCC 132]. The question as to how much marks should be
allocated for interview would depend upon the post and nature of duties to
be performed. The nature of duties to be performed on the post of
Watchman/Messenger/Attender is not such which requires a high intellectual
ability or any particular trait of the candidates which is required to be judged
by an expert.
Subash Chandra Verma And Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc on 13 December, 1994
"From the counter affidavit and also from the lists
furnished by the petitioners themselves it is clear that of
the 11 included in the additional list only two were
appointed and they are serial Nos. 6 and 8 in the
additional list. It is also stated in the counter affidavit
that 50% marks were given to the written test and 50%
marks for the interview. That will not vitiate the
selection as held by the Supreme Court in Subash
Chandra Verma v. State of Bihar 1995 Supp.
Manager Govt. Branch Press &. Anr vs D. B. Belliawpa on 30 November, 1978
When a power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose, the same
would amount to malice in law [ See The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and
Another v. D.B. Belliappa - AIR 1979 SC 429, Punjab State Electricity
Board v. Zora Singh and Others (2005) 6 SCC 776 and K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P. and Others (2006) 3 SCC 581].
Punjab State Electricity Board Ltd vs Zora Singh & Ors on 11 August, 2005
When a power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose, the same
would amount to malice in law [ See The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and
Another v. D.B. Belliappa - AIR 1979 SC 429, Punjab State Electricity
Board v. Zora Singh and Others (2005) 6 SCC 776 and K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P. and Others (2006) 3 SCC 581].
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Inder Parkash Gupta vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 20 April, 2004
[See e.g. I.I.T., Kanpur v. Umesh Chandra and Others (2006)
5 SCC 664]
We may notice that in Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K and
Others [(2004) 6 SCC 786], a three-Judge Bench opined :