Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Vikas Gachli vs Competition Commission Of India on 24 May, 2011 cites

Devi Darshan Seth vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 May, 2011

2. Devi Darshan Seth (supra) was concerned with the appointment to the post of Joint Director (Law). However, the procedure for selection for Joint Director (Law) and Deputy Director (Law) was the same, save that W.P.(C) Nos.7007/2010 & 914/2011 Page 2 of 9 there are thirteen (13) posts for Deputy Director (Law) of which nine (9) are in the Unreserved Category, three (3) reserved for OBC Category and one (1) for SC Category.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008

6. The counsels have however contended that it was not noticed in Devi Darshan Seth that such instructions were issued in writing; that once the instructions are issued in writing, there could be no other criteria for selection than as prescribed in the said instructions and the dicta in Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11, though noticed in Devi Darshan Seth but distinguished, would apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 327 - J M Panchal - Full Document

K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008

(i) K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 laying down that after the commencement of the selection process, the criteria of minimum marks for the interview could not have been introduced and the introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process (consisting in that case also of written examination and interview) was completed amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game was played and which was held to be impermissible;
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 638 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990

(ii) N.T. Devin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157 laying down that candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention and that the right of consideration crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement. It was further held that any amendment of the rules or orders pending the selection should not affect the validity of the selection unless the amended Rules or the amended orders are expressly made applicable to pending selections;
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 313 - K N Singh - Full Document

Lila Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 19 August, 1981

Else, the Supreme court in Lila Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan (1981) 4 SCC 159 has held that the observations in certain judgments relating to admission to educational institutions that there can be no minimum marks for interview, have no applicability in matters of recruitment for employment in which interview is vital to determine the suitability of the candidate for the job;
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 295 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1