Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (0.31 seconds)
Sanjay Agarwal Son Of Khushi Ram Gupta vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 15 June, 2007 cites

Union Of India vs Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal on 4 May, 1994

In the case of Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal the date for determining the age of eligibility was fixed at 1st of August of the year in which the examination was to be held. At the time when this cut off date was fixed, there used to be only one examination for recruitment. Later on, a preliminary examination was also introduced. Yet the cut off date was not modified. The Tribunal held that after the introduction of the preliminary examination the cut off date had become arbitrary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 243 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. Parameswaran Match Works Etc on 4 November, 1974

In the first place, making a cut off date dependent on the last date for receiving applications, makes it more subject to vagaries of the department concerned, making it dependant on the date when each department issues an advertisement and the date which each department concerned fixes as the last date for receiving applications. A person who may fall on the wrong side of such a cut off date may well contend that the cut off date is unfair, since the advertisement could have been issued earlier; Or in the alternative that the cut off date could have been fixed later at the point of selection :or appointment. Such an argument is always open, irrespective of the cut off date fixed and the manner in which it is fixed. That is why this Court has said in the case of Parameshwaran Match WorksAIR 1974 SC 2349 (supra) and later cases that the cut off date is valid unless it is so capricious or whimsical as to be wholly unreasonable. To say that the only cut off date can be the last date for receiving applications, appears to be without any basic. In our view the cut off date which is fixed in the ;. resent case with reference to the beginning of the calendar year following the date of application, cannot be considered as capricious or unreasonable. On the contrary, it is less prons to vagaries and is less uncertain.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 229 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next